Talk:Energy in Turkey/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Uness232 (talk · contribs) 00:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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.	"In total, Turkey uses about six billion GJ of primary energy per year: over 80% from fossil fuels." isn't very good English in my opinion, something like "In total, Turkey uses about six billion GJ of primary energy per year, over 80% of which are from fossil fuels." is better.  Done Similarly "From 1990 to 2017 annual primary energy supply tripled, but then remained constant to 2019. In 2019 it included almost 30% oil, 30% coal, and about 25% gas." isn't particularly good writing. A better option would be "From 1990 to 2017, the annual primary energy supply tripled, and has remained constant since. In 2019, Turkey's primary energy supply consisted of around 30% oil, 30% coal, and about 25% gas." Partly  Done as the word "since" would change the meaning. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC) I would still be in favor of using since and updating it as new data is available, but both is acceptable. Uness232 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC) In "and not taking more advantage of the country's abundant wind and sunshine.", replacing the word sunshine with solar potential sounds better in my opinion.  Done In "coal, gas and hydro" hydro should probably be lengthened to hydro-electric, as it is the first mention of the word in the article.  Done "Road transport in the country consumes the most oil products." Does not fit in that part of the lead, consider changing its place.  Done by moving next to "imports" as oil is big import. "As of 2021, the renewable energy share in installed power capacity in Turkey was 52%." I'm not quite sure if this sentence says what I think it says, however, if it does, "As of 2021, the share of renewable energy in Turkey's installed power capacity was 52%." should be better.  Done by simplifying and linking. "Turkey's energy strategy includes 'within the context of sustainable development, giving due consideration to environmental concerns all along the energy chain'." This hurts readability quite a bit, as includes and within sound unexpected together. Maybe shorten the quote, or split it to make it more readable.  Done by rewording without "include" "From 1990 to 2019, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion rose from 130 megatonnes (Mt) to 360 Mt. Turkey's gross greenhouse gas emissions are about six tons per person per year, which is more than the global average." While these sentences don't flow into each other very well, I can see why this happened, so putting this here so that if something better does come to somebody's mind, they should change it.  Done "and diversified energy sources." This is a redundancy, as said info was already given above.  Done "However, at certain times of the year (,) the east of the country generates excess electricity (,) as it has the most hydroelectricity in Turkey, but far less industry and population than the west." This sentence should probably be broken up by commas, possibly at the (,) signs. Also, instead of "most hydroelectricity" something like "highest hydroelectric production/output" or similar could work better.  Done by deleting as I am not certain it is still true given recent droughts. "This was part of the cause", "one cause of" works better here.  Done "between 2005 and 2015 (,) Turkey's" a comma there works much better.  Done "According to one study (,) if energy policy was changed" a comma here also works much better.  Done "by improved efficiencies." is also a redundancy, the paragraph already talks about improving efficiency in a more indirect way, so stating it here is redundant.  Done "there is potential for 50% energy savings in buildings." is not good writing, "the energy required for buildings could be cut by half" or similar is better.  Done "building energy efficiency targets" is hard to read "energy efficiency targets for buildings" is better. Done "Capacity mechanism payments to coal-fired power stations in Turkey in 2019 totalled ₺720 million (US$130 million) and ₺542 million (US$96 million) to gas-fired power stations in Turkey." here, replace and with compared to, otherwise the sentence does not communicate your point well.  Done "The government sets the price of residential gas and electricity." This sentence is not really related to the rest of the paragraph as far as I can see, consider changing its place.  Done "but according to researcher Gulmira Rzayeva (,) to benefit from a gas price similar to the European hub price (,) the government will have to liberalise the gas market fully by the end of the 2020s." Needs commas in places marked by (,)  Done "The natural gas price is expected to fall during the 2020s due to the start of production from Turkey's part of the Black Sea." The falling prices were already mentioned, consider making those two sentences one.  Done by correcting the second one to "import bill" whereas first is world price. "When imported coal costs less than 70 USD/tonne it is taxed to bring it up to that price, which means for coal-fired plants which are 40% efficient a cost of around 25 USD/MWh." Reordering this sentence (changing the place of the cost and the efficiency) might be a good idea.  Done "State-owned BOTAŞ controls 80% of the natural gas market and thus the price, but according to researcher Gulmira Rzayeva, to benefit from a gas price similar to the European hub price, the government will have to liberalise the gas market fully by the end of the 2020s." I know you fixed this sentence, but it still is very hard to read. Maybe change "and thus the price, but" to just "and,".  Done "they estimate both new wind and solar power are be cheaper than building new coal power plants;" Pretty obvious need for a minor copyedit, I believe the word is before.  Done "The government sets the price of residential gas and electricity." While its new place in the economics section is better, might want to connect that to another sentence.  Done "But as of May 2021(,) Turkey was not being supplied, as the long-term contract had expired and new terms had not yet been agreed." I don't think I have to explain this at this point.  Done feel free to change punctuation yourself if it would be less work for you "Although the largest field, Batı Raman, produces extra heavy crude (oil,) other fields are much lighter(;) so domestic crude API gravity averages 28, and this medium weight is suitable for the Turkish market." This sentence needs the above fixes, but may also be too technical, not exactly a dealbreaker here, but if you have something better, please don't hesitate.  Done "But sulfur content is generally high, so refineries may need to be upgraded to meet 2020 maritime sulfur limits. There is some enhanced oil recovery." No need for but there. Is there a specific reason why the second sentence is there? I would ask you to move it, but as you are probably a lot more knowledgable, maybe you know something I don't so more of a question than anything.  Done "In 2021(,) there is a lot of excess generation capacity(,) but only enough transmission lines to export one percent of the total." should either be was to comply with tense, or has been, to indicate that we're still in 2021, also commas. I don't understand your point about tenses - feel free to change as I can always undo if I disagree Chidgk1 (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC) "In the 2010s(,) imports of gas, mostly for power stations in Turkey, was one of the main import costs for the economy of Turkey."  Done feel free to change punctuation yourself if it would be less work for you "Academics have suggested that the target of 23% from renewables by 2030 should be increased to at least 50%." doesn't this conflict with "The country is aiming for two-thirds of its electricity supply to be from renewables by 2023."?  Done by deleting the latter as I suspect Daily Sabah headline to be wrong. Thank you so much - extremely well spotted - fixing just this one serious mistake was worth all your review time I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Will do one last read-through for 1a and 1b after everything is done, but for now this is a pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The first thing I noticed was the slightly malformed first sentence, per MOS:FIRST, "A clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title." So, instead of "Consumption of energy in Turkey is around the world average of about seventy gigajoules (GJ) per person per year." a clearer and less clunky option would be "Energy consumption in Turkey is around the world average of about seventy gigajoules (GJ) per person per year." or, in my opinion, "Energy consumption in Turkey is around the world average, about seventy gigajoules (GJ) per person per year." Comment: I am not against the change but if we changed that we would lose the bolding of the title. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC) I am aware, however, readability comes before minor formatting issues in my opinion. Uness232 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)  Done "Turkey's energy policy prioritises reducing imports, but the OECD has criticised the lack of carbon pricing," consider changing but to and here, the word but implies direct contradiction, per MOS:EDITORIAL.  Done by using "and" to the previous sentence. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC) "The regulator is the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (Turkish: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Enerji Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumu)." While the current structure is okay, "The authority/institution responsible for regulation of the energy sector is..." sounds better to me.  Done by linking to Vikipedi Chidgk1 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Unfortunately, there is a very serious flaw in the article, which prevents me from putting it on hold. This article's subheadings are neither standardized nor necessarily non-technical; the article containing technical terms is fine to a degree, however the headings should be understandable by everyone. (See Energy in the United Kingdom for a better example.) I'm sorry, but I have to fail this article. Looking at Energy in the United Kingdom there are a few subsections I could create here, such as "cogeneration". On the other hand Energy in the United Kingdom has less information on policy than this article - for example it omits UK govt support for hydrogen - so I think this article needs more policy subheadings. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any "Energy in Country X" article which is already rated good or above, so it seems unlikely there is a standard layout. Which subheadings in this article are too technical? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC) The two that need to be changed are import substitution and conservation storage and transmission, Done another problem, and I believe the biggest reason why I can not put it on hold, is that a lot of the text in one subheading can belong in another. This does, in a way, lead to MOS:OVERSECTION. The sections aren't very short, but could benefit from being joined, Done and since that will create new prose problems which we haven't gotten to the end of in the original text, after that, any source/cite problems will also need to be addressed. These are a lot to be fixed in just 7 days. Uness232 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC) After the discussion in the result section, decided to put on hold, I will detail this when all other issues are solved. Uness232 (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC) "During the early 2020s the wholesale price of natural gas is forecast to fall close to the European hub price." in Economics, I believe this was mentioned beforehand, might want to integrate the two statements.  Not done because this is such an important issue e.g. for whether gas-fired power plants go bankrupt, competition gas/coal that it deserves repeating Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Alright, if in your opinion this needs repeating it can stay, I'm also removing the note below. "Heating is the main use for geothermal power in Turkey. By increasing massively its production of solar power in the south and wind power in the west, the country's entire energy demand could be met from renewable sources. The government plans a green electricity tariff for June 2021." These sentences don't seem to be related necessarily, consider moving them, maybe to different sections. Also, "By increasing massively its production of solar power in the south and wind power in the west, the country's entire energy demand could be met from renewable sources." could be better if massively is removed, as it is a bit MOS:EDITORIAL.  Done The entire consumption section is more or less the beginning of the lead, consider either expanding it or rephrasing it.  Done by simplifying lead "According to some studies renewable..." Some studies is MOS:WEASEL, but as it is a image caption and if you can't find anything better that is okay. Again, will do one last read-through for 1a and 1b after everything, but for now this is also a 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.	It's all nice and standardized, not much to say here.
	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).	"Because the Turkish government is very centralised, energy policy is a national policy." Removing the centralized part, or providing a source for it (would not recommend) would be nice. If the first part is removed, the sentence should be restructured.  Done The first part was added because of a previous review so I am reluctant to remove it in case a future reviewer wants it again. I doubt anyone would ever challenge the sentence because as far as I know most countries don't have local energy policies only national - but I have cited anyway. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Oh, that's okay then, the reason I wanted a citation is actually the reason you just stated; most countries do not have local energy policies, but rather national ones, so there needs to be some support for the cause and effect given there. Uness232 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC) I will check all the sources to see if they match up with the text later, but for now, the sources seem okay. The only contentious source used is AA, but the article uses its more critical articles, as far as I can tell, so it seems fine. The Duvar English article (19) seems more like a hit-piece than anything else, and makes very controversial claims such as "With that many HES projects, there was no more natural stream water left in the country." Al Gedik is a well known energy analyst. But all I am citing him for is complaining that the 2019 to 2023 strategic plan was published over a year after the period it covers started. Have added another cite which confirms it was published May 2020.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Alright, did not know that, no offense to him then, I was mainly concerned with some of the claims he was making, which sounded very hyperbolic. Uness232 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC) This is more of a question, would you consider [1] a WP:RS? If so I will not object to it, however I am still noting this down as I am undecided on it. I am not very familiar with it but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Headbomb/unreliable.js does not flag it as unreliable. It has not been discussed since 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_149#OilPrice.org and is not mentioned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Chidgk1 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC) I see, I won't be rejecting it then. If somebody disputes it they can look at the review. Uness232 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC) The sources are otherwise fine, as of now this gets a pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Looking at other energy articles as well as the sources, I decided to give this a pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place.  Yes Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a Main, name of detailed article or comparable template.  Yes I know I said this one was fine, but unfortunately The Future of the Natural Gas monopoly is not summarized in any way. This is the last comment I have, if fixed or objected to, I will pass this article. Yikes! I only had to read the first convoluted sentence to see you are right - on it Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)  Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	"In the 2010s, fossil fuel imports were probably the largest structural vulnerability of the country's economy." Instead of probably, attribution would work better. Done "As an oil and gas importer, Turkey can increase security of supply by increasing the proportion of renewable electricity it produces." This should be attributed, and also restructured to something along the lines of "According to [attribution], Turkey would be able to increase security of supply by increasing the proportion of renewable electricity it produces." Done "The International Energy Agency has suggested Turkey implement a carbon market. In the long term, a carbon tax would reduce import dependency by speeding development of national solar and wind energy." The second one needs attribution, and these sentences would sound better if joined. Done "Turkey does not want to split up BOTAŞ or give other power companies there fair use of BOTAŞ' pipelines." This needs more neutral tone, in its current state it is vague and gives intent and agency to what you call "Turkey", whether that means the president, Grand National Assembly of Turkey or the public is not clarified.  Done "Potential employment co-benefits of a climate change policy" is not a neutral sub-heading title, consider changing it, or moving the section all together, since it is quite short.  Done "Increasing the share of renewable energy could make the country more energy independent and increase employment especially in Turkey's solar PV and solar heating industries." Could use attribution in my opinion, but feel free to disagree with me on this one.  Done "A plan for solar power in Turkey beyond 2023 is needed. In an attempt to reduce fossil fuel imports the government supports local production of electric cars and solar cells." Attribution necessary in the first sentence here, the second sentence, on the other hand, doesn't seem to fit that part of the text.  Done first part. I think it fits because the solar power could charge the cars when they are parked at workplaces. (although most will be used for building aircon) Chidgk1 (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC) "according to one Iranian energy analyst" a name could be better here.  Done "Turkey needs a renewable energy plan beyond 2023, which includes transport, industry, heating and cooling as well as electricity generation." This sentence needs attribution, as stated in the previous note.  Done While I'm in no way suggesting that the data presented in the Cobenefits media is wrong, I would suggest replacing them, as they seem to be promoting policy in a way that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. As a source I think it's okay though.  Partly done I have removed most of their media and just left one graphic with a cite from an independent source - is that OK? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC) That is totally okay by me. Uness232 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring or content disputes.
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.	No fair use rationales necessary here, everything is attributed accordingly if necessary.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I think all of this is good enough.
	7. Overall assessment.	Reason explained in bold, in section 1b. It is your decision but I believe all the issues can be fixed within a week if you would like to put the review on hold. Otherwise there would likely be a delay of several months before the next review. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC) As I explained in my, I see that as very unlikely, however if you are absolutely sure we can continue. (I do not know of the exact rules on passing an article after declaring that you've failed it, but I hope that's not a breach of rules.) Uness232 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Also, technicality, but this article would qualify for a cleanup tag, as the extensive copyediting in 1a would suggest, which normally would be an quick fail. I do not want to enforce this, but with the other problems I'm not so sure. Uness232 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Unfortunately I expect to be stuck at home for the next 7 days with not much else to do - so if you have time to detail what needs fixing with cites etc then I will likely be able to do it. But if you have the opportunity to turn off your computer and get out and do something more enjoyable forget this and take it while you can. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Alright, we'll continue the review then. Sorry for acting with such haste. Uness232 (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC) All problems have been solved, therefore the article passes.