Renewable energy in Turkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Energy GA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Turkey GA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
4 reports at https://www.cobenefits.info/country-studies-infographics/studies/turkey/ may be useful
Anyone considering reviewing this - if any excerpted articles have not yet been reviewed please could you do that instead as otherwise it will get confusing - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
presume https://shura.org.tr/turkiye-elektrik-sistemine-yenilenebilir-enerji-kaynaklarinin-entegrasyonu/ will be translated to English soon
https://shura.org.tr/en/net-zero-2053-a-roadmap-for-the-turkish-electricity-sector/
The lead does not follow the recommendations of the Manual of style, see MOS:FIRST. Specifically the first sentence does not tell the reader what the subject is. It makes the assumption that the title already provides that information to a sufficient level. The lead also appears to present opinions not discussed in the body text. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
https://tr.boell.org/en/2023/02/28/renewable-energy-turkey-moment-eu-china-competition-collaboration-nexus-green-markets Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Possibly a pic with 2 forms of RE together or something to do with heating as neglected compared to electricity Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@204.237.51.192 - the use of excerpts is intended to make these articles easier to keep up to date - there is some background info at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEwkFKvmnes. I feel this article should concentrate on issues which are common to more than one form of RE - such as the current fee Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
from the Carnegie cite “two phases” onwards Chidgk1 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I will be referring to the previous GANs (1 and 2) as well as my other review (Talk:Oil in Turkey/GA1 whilst reviewing this article. After looking through the article, I see no reason to quickfail so I'll get straight into it.
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. | The prose is clear and broadly understandable to a wide audience, SPaG are correct. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is appropriately long and descriptive for the article size and matches MoS for layout. | |
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 article provides a list of specific references in the reference section which is consistently formatted | |
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). | So the article has lots of citations (excellent), and there don't seem to be any bare URLs I can see | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No OR, all claims are backed up by citations inline | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | After running through plagiarismdetector, I haven't seen any non-circular plagiarism nor copyvios | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article addresses the main aspects of the topic appropriately | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article focuses on the main aspects of the topic and does not go into unnecessary detail. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article does not give any undue weight to any one opinion and follows NPOV | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article does not have any edit warring that I can see | |
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. | All images are tagged with correct copyright status | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are appropriately captioned and suitable for the article content. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Article has definitley improved in the like 6 months since it was last GA reviewed |
The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Renewable energy in Turkey; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @Chidgk1: Good article, but the hook is kind of boring. Is there anything better you can use? Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe it would be more interesting if it were simpler phrasing?: