Talk:Hydroelectricity in Turkey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Hoping to complete the review over the next week. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: this article will need a lot of work to get to the GA standard. We've successfully worked together to do that in the past (Coal in Turkey). However, right now this is pretty close to a quick-fail (WP:GAFAIL) because it is a long way off from meeting the third GA criteria (breadth of coverage). I'm sure you can improve the article, but it may take time. Do you think you will have the time needed to work on this article soon? I can fail the article for now and promise to review it again when you re-nominate it, or I can put it on hold. Let me know what you would prefer. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811 Barring any accidents and emergencies I expect to have time. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - I'm going to put the review on hold for one week and will return and take a second look after that. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more notes for the hold - make sure that this is an encyclopedic summary of the topic. The article should not be an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how relevant. It should provide complete coverage of the topic for a new reader who is not expected to be particularly familiar with either hydroelectricity or Turkey. Looking forward to reading the article again! Ganesha811 (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work on the page. I'll start re-reviewing it and lift the hold tomorrow at the one-week mark. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, @Chidgk1: this article passes GA. I don't think it's perfect, but it meets the criteria and I really appreciate the hard work you put into it. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some grammatical issues. Don't begin sentences with conjunctions (But, And), etc. But this says otherwise. If you see any grammar you dislike and it is easy to change just do so - I won't change it back unless it messes up the meaning. Nor will I be peeved. But if the grammar is obscuring the meaning feel free to tag "clarify" or detail here. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Hydropower projects on the transboundary...." missing 'd' in 'and', Caucasian should be capitalized, missing period at end of sentence. Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] You can use "Template:To USD" for text with liras and dollars (about 25 USD). Bug reported Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] "has been proposed", "it might be" , "it has been reported" "it is claimed" - by who? when? Watch out for passive voice. Please do a check for this issue and make sure that sentences don't raise questions without answering them. Another example: why did Turkey vote against the 1997 Watercourses Convention? It's a good detail, but the bare mention of it should be supplemented by some context and explanation. Partly done. Have attributed and explained watercourses vote and a few other places, but as mentioned in the link above avoiding passive voice is not a general rule. However there may well be particular sentences which would be better in active voice so if I have missed some please let me know which. For info which is not likely to be disputed and where the speaker is not important it would slow the reader down to have everything in active voice I think. But if a statement is a bit contentious or a minority view I agree it should be attributed - have done some but let me know if I missed any. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Still some prose issues - the text does not flow smoothly and feels scattershot and disorganized. I am aware that this comment is not detailed enough to be very helpful, so I will go through and make some prose edits myself to improve the issue later today. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks - it is hard for me to spot and fix my own bad writing - but if particular bits are hard for you to fix too please point them out so I can try. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Made some changes. I think this is at the GA standard, though there is still room for improvement. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm still not convinced about the list of largest stations. I think the material could be moved to the Projects section and incorporated into the text, rather than being a table. We should keep a list to List of hydroelectric power stations in Turkey as a hatnote for some section, though. Converted to text but not moved yet as maybe you have comments on the structure as a whole. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I would combine it with the 'Projects' section. I would move 'Energy storage and dispatchability' to 'Hydroelectric potential' under 'Water resources.' Done Chidgk1 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Issue addressed. Pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Move 'External Links' below References. Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ref #46 has a typo (eople's Democratic Party). Done - feel free to fix any obvious grammar etc mistakes if easier for you than noting here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Pass - issues addressed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Source check turns up nothing egregious. Sources are reliable, a number of good academic sources. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Where possible, replace "some historians say" or "Some academics say" with mentions of specific historians/academics and their views, to avoid WP:WEASEL. Done Chidgk1 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Pass - sufficiently improved.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by manual spot-check or Earwig. Pass. Second check after hold is ok. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article seems to be missing a lot of potential information. When compared to similar articles like Coal power in Turkey, Coal in Turkey, or Renewable energy in Scotland, the absent parts become clearer. More specifically: The history section is lacking. It consists of three sentences, one of which is unsourced, and says nothing specific about any year after 1954. The information about the Southeastern Anatolia project is separated from the rest of the history, which doesn't make much sense. The article does not go into depth on the politics of hydroelectricity. Who has supported it? Who has opposed it? Beyond one sentence "Tens of thousands of people have been displaced" there are no details of impacts on communities. The list of largest stations is not detailed and has no clear criteria - why are only 4 projects included? The article does not give sufficient context around Turkey's electrical sector. How has the role of hydropower changed over time? Who is the power sold to? Environmental effects are only very briefly mentioned. There is more literature out there on this subject that can be added to the article. The potential impact of climate change is not discussed in-depth. The controversy over the Ilısu Dam, which is fairly well-covered on that page, is not given enough detail here. Ganesha811 Thanks for source suggestions. I used several of those and have added quite a lot more info - if anything is still missing please let me know as I may need to link (or excerpt) more to details in other already good articles rather than copy and paste here. And if anyone reading this has time to complete Talk:Electricity_sector_in_Turkey/GA5 that would be great. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] This issue has been substantially improved, but is not fully addressed yet. More detailed comments to come. Ganesha811 As Electricity sector in Turkey has now been rated "good" I will now be happy to excerpt any paragraphs you feel should be here too. Also perhaps the first para of Climate_change_in_Turkey#Water_resources and 4th para of Climate_change_in_Turkey#Economic_impacts? Conversely something from here could perhaps be excerpted to Environmental issues in Turkey to improve that article. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Chidgk1 - why don't you bring over what you feel would be worthwhile? Add any excerpts and then ping me again so I can review, bearing the expansion in mind. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ganesha811 Done - ready for you to take another look Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think the article is now reasonably comprehensive. It could still use a little organization, which I will address in my prose comments / changes. Provisional pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Will address any minor issues during prose review. No major issues. Provisional pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Large expansion during hold, but otherwise stable - no edit wars, etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Arch dam Oymapinar (Manavgat River, Turkey).JPG could use a caption on Commons. Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] File:Hasankeyf - panoramio (1).jpg could use an improved description on Commons. Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Pass - issues fixed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Electricity Turkey.svg has a caption which discusses 2021, and which is supported by the text, but the actual image doesn't cover 2021. Remove or update the image, or choose a different one, to illustrate this issue. As explained in image description am awaiting publication of full 2021 figures Chidgk1 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Until the image is updated it should be removed or put in context correctly - it shouldn't mention 2021 if it doesn't have data for 2021. Done (changed to 2020 as there was drought that year too although less than 2021) Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

GA Review

Some potentially helpful sources for expansion