Talk:Solar power in Turkey/GA1
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)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this. BigDom (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2022 (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. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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 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. 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.
| |
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) | |
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? | |
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?
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
"Bids for 1.5 GW are due in 2022." - what does this mean?
- "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?
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
- "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!)
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
Heating and hot water
What is "GWth"?
Photovoltaics
What is "CO2eq"?
Why does "adjacent power stations" link to coal power in Turkey - is "adjacent" some technical term?
"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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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)
Spot check on some references:
Ref 1 doesn't say anything about the climate or geography of Turkey as far as I can see.
Ref 3 doesn't say anything about being similarly sunny to Spain.
Ref 7 - maybe worth clarifying that the figure of 1 TWh refers to all electricity generation, not just solar
Ref 12 gives the annual insolation as 2766.5 compared to 2741 in the article.
Please could these be addressed? BigDom (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @BigDom: That was very useful - hope I have covered everything - if anything else needed please say Chidgk1 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@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)