Jump to content

Talk:Solar power in Turkey/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 06:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this. BigDom (talk) 06:39, 14 May 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. Fixed a few nitpicky grammar points myself; see below the table for some things I think could do with clarification
These have been fixed.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. There are three very short sections (History, CSP, Insolation) which are discouraged by the MOS. It seems to me that the History and Insolation could be combined into some kind of "Background" section describing the climate of Turkey, why it is suitable for solar power and then when solar power started to be used and how it has developed. The insolation content can be turned into prose rather than a bulleted list.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. The OECD source is given its own section but then only referenced once inline - could it just be incorporated into the rest of the references?
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author info for ref 8 seems to have gone wrong, refs 10, 33, 46, 53 & 58 are missing publisher/website info, ref 43 has no date/publisher/author/accessdate.

Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe personal preference but I don't see the need for so many inline references in the lead section as there are no direct quotes and nothing controversial or likely to be challenged (see WP:LEADCITE; generally, the lead should summarise information which is mentioned and referenced later on.

Reason for cites in lead is so that when in future the lead is excerpted into Renewable energy in Turkey readers can check cites without clicking through to this article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I hadn't realised the text was being reused elsewhere. No big deal then. BigDom (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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). Not a topic I knew much about so was unfamiliar with many of the source websites, but the ones I've checked seem to be reliable expert bodies and/or news sites with editorial oversight.

See below for a few issues with the reference spot check. BigDom (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed thanks - if you spot any more let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's copyvio detector didn't spot anything.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Some terms could do with a bit more detail if anything, just a couple of lines so readers don't have to leave the page to find more information (see comments below for examples)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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. Licences all look fine.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Karabuk solar farm - is there anything interesting to add to the caption? Per WP:CAP, "most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious". I notice that Karabuk isn't mentioned in the article either, could any information be added?
Updated caption but not very interesting - maybe I should remove that pic? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the updated caption is fine but maybe the picture could be moved to the Photovoltaics section as an illustration of a PV farm? BigDom (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. Looks pretty good so far, just a few points to tidy up so I'll leave this open.

Nitpicky grammar/prose points:

Lead

  • "Conditions for solar power generation are comparable to Spain. However, in 2020 Turkey ranked 8th in Europe for solar power." - where did Spain rank for comparison?
if still unclear please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good now. BigDom (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the auction system?
Added 3 sentences at beginning economics section - if unclear let me know - if clear they should perhaps be moved to the variable renewable energy article and linked from here? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: I think these new sentences are great and give some much-needed context for non-expert readers. The following claims just need inline refs: "the government commits to buy at that price per kWh for a fixed number of years, or up to a certain total amount of power" and "Turkey does not have enough solar cell manufacturing capacity they would likely be bought from China and so would have to be paid for in foreign currency". Cheers, BigDom (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bids for 1.5 GW are due in 2022." - what does this mean?
Changed to "Tenders for 1.2 GW of new solar power are due end May 2022" - if still unclear please say Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every gigawatt of solar power installed would save over US$100 million on gas import costs.[6]", "modelling by Carbon Tracker indicates that new solar power will become cheaper than all existing coal plants by 2023" - why no mention of these points in the Economics section?
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and laws

  • "In 2022 there are applications for 2 GW" - doesn't match the 1.5 mentioned in the lead and is still unclear what these applications are actually for
Number is more than in lead as includes some wind whereas lead number is just solar - no details in source re share wind/solar - maybe I should remove as confusing? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if there's a source that says 1.2 as in the lead then maybe lets stick with that one. BigDom (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed number Chidgk1 (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlicensed plants can have monthly net metering" - maybe a few words about what this means to save the reader having to leave the article to find out (they may not come back!)
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

  • "Wind speed and rainfall can be low in summer thus reducing wind generation and hydroelectricity.[24]" - this would be better placed in the new suggested "Background" section
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heating and hot water

  • What is "GWth"?
Removed as maybe a mistake Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photovoltaics

  • What is "CO2eq"?
wikilinked Chidgk1 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "adjacent power stations" link to coal power in Turkey - is "adjacent" some technical term?
No - amended - if still unclear please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sell some electricity via the grid" - do they sell via the grid (directly to consumers) or to the grid (e.g. net metering)? Just wondering.
Good question but the Turkish source does not say - it just says they can sell (so I removed "via the grid") Chidgk1 (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrated Solar Power

  • Worth a line or two saying what CSP is and how it differs from photovoltaics, again to save the reader having to leave the page to find out
If you insist I will add - but for this country I think not worth the bother as we have so little CSP and very unlikely to add more in my opinion Chidgk1 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a line myself, see what you think and feel free to edit. I also changed the name of the section to "Alternatives to photovoltaics" as the solar updraft tower is also mentioned there. Thanks for addressing the other points above, they look much better. BigDom (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes both very minor so adding in one section was good idea Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Good work so far! I don't think any of these are major points but let me know if anything's unclear and I'll try and clarify. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on some references:

  • Ref 1 doesn't say anything about the climate or geography of Turkey as far as I can see.
Removed geography and put a different ref for climate Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 doesn't say anything about being similarly sunny to Spain.
Added map to show that Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 - maybe worth clarifying that the figure of 1 TWh refers to all electricity generation, not just solar
Ooops - removed thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12 gives the annual insolation as 2766.5 compared to 2741 in the article.
Sources disagree but if I rounded correctly our wording now covers both cites. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for dealing with these. BigDom (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please could these be addressed? BigDom (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BigDom: That was very useful - hope I have covered everything - if anything else needed please say Chidgk1 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're nearly there! Just had another look through and refs 4, 40, 50, 53, 60 & 65 (as of this diff) are still missing publisher info etc. Once they're done I'll have one last read through and pass if there are no more issues. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done and some other cites Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: I've had a last read through this morning and can't see anything else outstanding. I think the article now meets the Good Article Criteria, so I will promote it. Congrats, BigDom (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_power_in_Turkey/GA1&oldid=1088980852"