Talk:Electricity sector in Turkey/GA4

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am planning to review this article over the next 7 days. Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I congratulate the editors for the large amount of work that has already gone into this article. This is a difficult topic to cover. However, as I have set out below, I do not consider that this article currently meets the GA criteria for prose and coverage.

Criteria 1 - well written

The article contains many sections that are densely written - an assembly of short statements (typically statements of fact) with citations. The densely written content of these sections can be difficult to follow because of the lack of context or explanation of the facts presented, and lack of linkages between different ideas. Some examples of sections with this characteristic include: Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Policy and Regulation. Overall, it is too difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding. Most of these sections need expansion and re-writing for clarity so that the reader can understand the content. In addition, some of the factual statements presented are now out of date.

The longer sections are somewhat difficult to read because they lack sub-headings that would classify the individual topics within the section. A good example is Generation - although the topic appears to require expanding as well (see below).

The section: "Health, safety and resilience" brings together topics that are not a natural fit, and this is confusing for the reader. The topic of air pollution from coal fired plants could potentially be better covered as "Environmental impacts" as a subheading under Generation-coal.

The topic of "resilience" is covered briefly in the section "Health, safety and resilience", but it is not clear. Power system security is a large topic and would probably require an article on its own to make it broadly understandable. If government energy policy is seeking a move towards increased resilience at a local level, some content about this topic could be covered to some extent under Energy policy. If there have already been significant microgrids installed that have capability for islanded operation, this is potentially a sub-topic under Consumption, or Demand forecasting.

 Done Checked and no significant policy or microgrids found - but expanded the section a little. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The section: "Future" is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage. It would probably be better to split the content and move it all back into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.

Content in some sections does not clearly fit with the heading. For example, the last paragraph in Consumption contains the sentence: "A group of four academics has suggested that the target of 32% from renewables by 2030 should be increased to at least 50%." This appears to be about Government policy, not consumption. In another example, the last paragraph of Transmission includes mention of solar power and pumped storage, but without clearly explaining how this is relevant to transmission.

Criteria 3 - Broad in its coverage

While the article covers many of the topics that would be expected, some important matters are given insufficient or no coverage. The topic of decarbonisation of the electricity energy supply comes up in several places in the article, but is not clearly explained from a government policy perspective. It would be easier for the reader to understand the "story" underpinning much of this article, if a section on Energy policy was placed towards the top of the article, and expanded to provide an outline of the long term energy planning stance.

Because energy policy controls more than electricity it is covered in Energy in Turkey, which is currently being reviewed at Talk:Energy in Turkey/GA2. I and I am sure the reviewer Uness232 would appreciate any comments you like to add there. If there should be more links to, or an extract of, that article from this one please advise here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point to clarify. My understanding is that for important topics like this, the article should have enough content to provide the reader with at least a basic introduction to the topic/ sub-topic without having to click the link and read other articles. This means that in the case of energy policy in Turkey as it affects the electricity sector, there should be a summary of at least a few paragraphs about the main points of energy policy affecting electricity. If there is a link to the "main" article, then there only needs to be a few citations in the summary, provided that all the points made are backed up appropriately by citations in the "main". Marshelec (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that a suitable overview illustration of the likely future scenarios will be helpful. This would need a few sentences to put it into context, but I have prepared an illustration from one of the sources you have cited. Hopefully, you will be able to access the Excel file at this link in OneDrive: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Aps5Nc0RjrzYgaRCvZx7NIEaOnzQGA?e=67gRpq If you can't access this, please advise. If you can, let me know what you think. To me, this gives the reader a reasonably clear idea about the current outlook, and is easier to understand than lots of narrative and numbers. Marshelec (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that diagrams are usually easier to understand than text. Your diagram look great thanks. But the problem is that the source is from 2020 so although it mentions increased natural gas production I don't think it takes into account the large 2021 Black Sea gas finds, which I am pretty sure will change forecasts. So thanks for your work but I think it is not worth the effort to add it as the forecast is likely already obsolete. Although the source mentions it, in 2021 the EU seems to be firming up on the CBAM - which might make a difference due to the arc furnaces - not sure. In 2021 I just don't find it believable coal generation will still be so much more than gas by 2040 - do you? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, you are the topic expert. My underlying issue was wanting the reader to be able to understand "the story". What is the main outlook for generation in Turkey ? It seems certain that the share of electricity generation from coal will decline significantly over the next decade, as a result of a combination of factors - market forces (energy price competition), environmental (both greenhouse gases and air pollution), cessation/withdrawal of subsidies for fossil fuels, and public opinion/ political considerations. The share of generation from renewable resources has increased markedly over the past 20 years, and this trend is predicted to continue through the next two decades, so that electricity generation in Turkey is forecast to be 50% from renewable resources before 2040. (You will no doubt have better references for the forecast time when the 50% from renewables milestone might be achieved). My view is that (provided you can find reference sources that you think are credible), a statement along these lines is an essential part of the introduction to the generation section, and should also appear in the lead.Marshelec (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done there is no decarbonization policy - added policy section Chidgk1 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Following directly from the point above, the topic of Generation is of great importance to this article, but there is insufficient content about the generation sector as a whole, given its importance. A reasonable expectation would be at least a paragraph or two about each of the main sources of generation. The content about solar generation development is useful, and worthy of a subsection, but is currently out of balance with the rest of the section. It would help to move the graphic about generation by source to be alongside the Generation section. It would be best to avoid vague statements such as: "The state-owned Electricity Generation Company (EÜAŞ) has about 20% of the market,[66] and there are many private companies".

Working on this - do you think I should move some text from List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey to this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I know it can be difficult to summarise content that is already drafted. I suggest aiming for the summary to be somewhere around 25-30% of the length of the content of the lead in the List article. It would provide basic facts about current numbers of operational coal units, total capacity etc, and then briefly state the main issues for coal-fired generation (including over-capacity, high cost of imported coal, local mining of lignite, subsidy of some plants with capacity payments out to 2027, closure of older units because of inability to meet new air pollution (emission) standards, declining competitiveness against renewable energy alternatives, poor economic outlook for coal fired generation, risk of default on loans, and increasing public opposition). It would not be necessary to copy all of the citations across to the "Sector" article, just select a few of the most relevant ones. Marshelec (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah to save effort I was thinking of moving rather than copying or summarizing. The reason I wrote all the text above the list was because I was trying to make it a "featured list". But I gave that up once I realised it could not be automatically kept in step with the list on Turkish Wikipedia. So I am tempted to just move all the freestyle text here (then delete anything out of date) and just link from there. What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In another example, while there is a section on Policy and Regulation, there is no content about the structure of regulation (for example, what are the names and roles of the main regulatory authorities).

The section on Consumption contains some content about electric vehicle chargers, and electric vehicles. The topic of the electrification of transport is highly relevant for this article, but there is little development of content on this topic at present. It also probably fits better with Energy policy and planning and/or Demand forecasting.

It is covered in Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey#Transport which I am reluctant to duplicate. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked at that content, but it was not what I had in mind. There are projections about the number of vehicles and the number of charging stations, but is there any forecast of the impact on electricity consumption ? That is what is most significant for this article. ON a related point, is there any other significant part of the energy sector where widespread conversion from fossil fuels to electricity is likely in the foreseeable future. For example, is there likely to be any drive to convert from gas as a process heat fuel in industry to electricity ??

Good question - I will try and find out Chidgk1 (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the TEO 2020 document, on page 145 I noted a forecast of 1 million electric vehicles by 2030, but that there is considerable uncertainty and debate about that forecast. I found the following on page 146: "... even with many more BEVs than can be reasonably expected over our forecast period, the electric consumption of BEV's will remain less than 2% of total annual power demand". I noted comments in the transport section that Turkey has a relatively fuel-efficient light vehicle fleet because of a history of vehicle taxes favouring low capacity engines. When you consider the "natural lifetime" of existing light vehicles in the fleet, and the difficulties and costs inherent in BEVs and electrification, the likelihood of a significant increase in electricity demand caused by electric vehicles seems to be fairly small in the near term. I also looked briefly at some other sections of the TEO, to try to understand the future scenarios for industrial consumption. Turkey already has a particularly high proportion of electricity demand going to industry (37% - p 336), so significant changes in that sector could have profound implications. On page 343 I found a forecast that electricity will become the leading fuel type for industry by 2030 (at 30%, compared with 26% now). This may be worth including in the Consumption section. Marshelec (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah well spotted - toned down cars and added vans - added more about industry  Done

The section on Transmission has no basic content about the transmission network - eg approximate system length, transmission voltages in use, number of transmission grid substations.

 Done

The section on Trade has no significant content about the wholesale electricity market, or any mention of the participants, the regulatory code or participation agreement that sets out the operating rules of the market, or the organisational roles (such as physical operation, clearing and reconciliation, settlement etc). Import/export is covered under Trade, but for clarity should probably be separate, or in a sub-heading.

 Partly done as I did not want to go into excess detail or duplicate info common to many markets which should be in electricity market. If I have missed something important please let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no content about how retailing of electricity is conducted or retail pricing structured. For instance, is the distribution lines service provider also a monopoly electrical energy provider in their operating region, or is there retail competition (ie wires and energy unbundled), with a variety of energy traders operating over the transmission and distribution networks ?

Yes they are all monopolies as mentioned in "distribution" so if I split off a separate "retailing" section it would likely to be too short - but I can if you think that would be better. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If lines and energy is "unbundled" and household consumers can choose to switch between different retail energy suppliers, then this is a significant fact on its own, and is worth including in the article. Since every household connected to the network must deal with an electricity supplier, the topic of electricity retailing and pricing seems worth of coverage. If you can get data on average household consumption and pricing that seems like useful content for the encyclopedia. I decided to create some draft content for electricity retailing in New Zealand that I will ultimately incorporate into Electricity sector in New Zealand. Perhaps this might help you to consider content that would be relevant for Turkey, depending on the availability of data sources. My example is still a draft in work, but see what you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marshelec/sandbox#Retail_and_residential_supply Marshelec (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Although your writing was good I could not find that data for Turkey. Created a retail section. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

On hold

At this stage, I will put further review on hold pending feedback, and will follow up in around 7 days.

Marshelec (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those very useful comments. In case changes due to the section 3 comments affect section 1 it seems best to sort section 3 out first before considering section 1 if you agree. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

One possible approach from here is that I am willing to work with you on section-by-section review and improvement. Quite a lot of work may be required, but we could do this at your pace, over several months if you wish. As a point of reference, it may be useful to look at this Good Article about an electricity industry topic: Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system. This shows the quality of prose and coverage that I understand is required at Good Article standard. Note that I intend to undertake a major review and updating of the comparable article Electricity sector in New Zealand. The New Zealand article doesn't deserve its B grade classification anymore because it is quite out of date. Working on improvements for the article about Electricity sector in Turkey will be thought-provoking and will help me with the review of the New Zealand article. Let me know if you are interested in this offer. If so, it may be best to fail the article as it stands now, and we can get on with step-by-step improvements as your time allows. Marshelec (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm tempting - let's keep it on hold and see how it goes over the next few days before deciding. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Review status update

The GA review process has been underway for 9 days. During that time, the nominator has made significant improvements to coverage of multiple topics including: Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Retailing. However, at this point, substantial issues remain, related to coverage and prose, but there are also some relatively minor issues with selection of images.

Criteria 3: Coverage - Summary style article

One significant issue for this GA review is the need for summary content where there is a "main" article linked. Here are some references, benchmarks and comments on this topic.

There is useful guidance about summary-style articles at WP:SUMMARY. It is also covered in WP:BETTER. The guidance indicates that the parent article should contain a section with a summary of the child article (as well as the link), and that there may be close similarity between the summary in the parent article and the lead in the sub-topic or child article. The criteria for Good Articles at WP:GA? does not cover summary style specifically, but the general assessment quality scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment lists the article Discovery of the neutron as a GA quality benchmark. This article shows the provision of significant summary content where there is a parent-child relationship with other articles. Another useful benchmark from the electricity sector is a GA-class article Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system that also shows the provision of summary content where there is a parent-child article relationship.

The current status of this article under review is that most instances of parent-child relationships do not include summary content. This particularly affects the Generation section and its sub-headings. The consequences are that the reader learns little about the generation sub-topic from the article as it stands. These generation types are highly important topics for this article, with profound implications for the electricity sector in Turkey. These topics require coverage at a summary level. Examples that require a summary of the sub-topic include the section: Hydro (where there is no content about installed capacity or overall significance and issues of hydro-electric generation, although there is content on these topics in the child article). The section about Gas does not have a summary of content about the gas-generation sector, such as installed capacity, issues, or explain whether the gas fuel is imported or domestically sourced. Note: It may also be appropriate to include in this summary, a mention of the recent find of gas in the Black Sea. [1] Another example without a summary is the section: Nuclear (where the existing content does not mention that the first nuclear generating facility in Turkey is to be commissioned in 2023).

The GA review process is to grade the quality of a single nominated article, not an interconnected web of related articles. Without summary content where a parent-child article link is provided, there is insufficient coverage in the parent article as it stands to meet the GA review criteria- Broad in its coverage, (provided that the sub-topic is clearly important to the subject of the article - and this is definitely the case for the generation sub-topics).

Criteria 1 - well-written

The article currently has multiple sections that are hard to follow because they are densely-written with little or no linkages of ideas between short factual statements in a single paragraph.

One particular example is the section: "Future". This section is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage. A suggestion for this section is to split the content and move it all back and merge it into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.

Another example is: "Economics and Finance". This is hard to follow because it covers a multitude of topics with minimal linkage of ideas. Some of the content appears to duplicate other sections. Again, this section may benefit from having all or most of the content relocated and merged into relevant sections elsewhere.

There is duplication between section 2:Policy, and section 11 Policy and regulation. These two sections should be revised and merged.

Overall, there is a need for review and improvement of readability throughout.

Illustrations

There would be benefit in reviewing the selection of images. GA review criteria requires that they are relevant. Guidance for relevance of images is given here: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. The key requirement is: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". The historic images in the article at present would be of relevance to an article specifically about the history of the electricity sector in Turkey, but are of marginal relevance for this article. Additional images would be worthwhile. The only power station image in the article at present is for a solar tower station. There are no images of other generation plants, or images relating to transmission, distribution or end use. The image of the driverless vehicle seems far more relevant to transport than to electricity.

Next steps

At this stage, there are several options for next steps:

1. request a second opinion via the GA review process page, to see if a different editor has a significantly different perspective from what I have outlined above
2. keep the review on hold, while further improvements are made in an incremental manner
3. fail the article now. Note: In that event, I confirm my offer to work co-operatively with the nominator outside of this GA review process on a thorough section-by-section review, subject to our availability. I would undertake to attempt some creation of fresh content (such as summary content) and other editing myself, not just critiques.

I seek feedback on the next steps.Marshelec (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

option 3 please Chidgk1 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Failing the article

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Marshelec (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)