Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this article with you. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The previous review can be seen at Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA1. According to the GA criteria, the article can be failed if "a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered".

Initial comments

• The links in the External links section all need to be written so that

1. the language of the text,
2. the title of the page,
3. the name of the publisher, and
4. a description of the website are all included.

See Wikipedia:External_links#How_to_link for more guidance. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• All the section titles except for 'History', 'Consumption', 'Generation', 'Trade', 'Transmission', 'Distribution', 'Resilience', 'Policy and regulation', 'Economics and finance', 'Future', 'References', 'Sources', and 'External links' should be removed, as they clutter up the article. The three sections 'Trade', 'Transmission', and 'Distribution' need to be combined into one section, probably with the title 'Trade, transmission and distribution'. See MOS:PARA for why I have put this comment in. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Godron, Philipp and Mahmut Erkut Cebeci and Osman Bülent Tör and Değer Saygın (2018), Godron, Philipp and Değer Saygın (2018). and Sarı, Ayşe Ceren and Değer Saygın (2018). are in the wrong section. They need to be moved to a new section called ‘Further reading’ if they are not going to be used to cite information in the text, or edited out.

Done

• Your sources section contains information about websites that are not used in the article (ETKB 2019-2023 Strateji̇k Plani, EÜAŞ - A briefing for investors, insurers and banks, and Türki̇ye'nin Enerji̇ Görünümü 2020) These should go into a ‘Further reading’ section, or used for citations, or edited out. They shouldn’t remain as they are.

Done

• Why do you have a ‘Sources’ section, when nearly all of the sources are described in the ‘References’ section? I would delete the 'Sources' section once the sources have been moved out.

Awaiting page number refs to be easily done in visual editor hopefully next year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Book_referencing#implementation_date

• All the references need to be checked to ensure they are free of mistakes, consistently formatted, and are not dead links.

Do you know any tool which can check that?

• The following links are duplicated, and any duplicates should be removed: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation; nationwide blackout in 2015; Sabancı University; European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity; Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Done

Previous GAN

Cerebellum's comments in April this year are below (I have added ✗ Not done where the comments have not been addressed):

• Lead: I recommend expanding the lead a little per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I think two paragraphs would be appropriate for this article.  Not done

Now done

• History: Needs references and some more expansion, it's jarring to skip from 1914 straight to 2015.
• Consumption: Would be good to have info on consumption over time, not just in 2019. Is the consumption increasing or decreasing?  Not done

Graph added

• Demand Forecasts: So that 2019 forecast would be a 5% increase with the economy predicted for recession, and in the past several demand forecasts have been overestimates. - I recommend removing this sentence unless you can find sources for it, we need to back up the claim about past demand forecasts being overestimates.  Not done

Cited

• Generating capacity: I would be interested to see more on why Turkey has so much excess generating capacity. Could you add more information from this article?
• Distribution: The sentence Increasing Turkey's proportion of electric cars in use to 10% by 2030 would have many benefits seems unencyclopedic to me, more like a policy prescription that a neutral description of the energy sector.  Not done

Amended away from Wikipedia voice

• Resilience: Again, saying that the analysis should take into account the benefits sounds prescriptive to me, not neutral/descriptive.  Not done

Amended away from Wikipedia voice

• References: The article is well referenced, however as a rule of thumb I'd say each paragraph in a GA should have a reference, so you need one for the "Environmental impact" section.

Every section now has at least 2 cites

• Economics and finance: Per WP:EL, external links don't usually go in the body of an article, I'd move the "auctions" link to the references or external links section.

Fixed

• Prices: Prices to end consumers are regulated by the government and will likely be increased in late 2019.: This could be updated, did the price increases occur?

More recent price added

Failing the article

I'm failing the article, as some of the issues raised in the previous review have not been addressed, and there's much to do besides. You (or another editor) will need to address the comments from both reviews before deciding to nominate the article again. All the best, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Doh for some reason I had forgotten to fix the previous issues raised - probably had subconsciously confused it with another GAN where I had fixed them. Sorry for wasting your time with old issues but at least some of it was useful in the new issues you have raised. Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)