Talk:Energy policy of Turkey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
There are too many short sentences in this article and lacks paragraphs in multiple sections that are only one or two sentences themselves.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
There are some unsourced statements in this article. (Edit: I do not see any unsourced material.)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The entire article is focused on the energy policies of Turkey and covers it from clean to fossil fuels.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There is no apparent bias in this article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
There have only been two edits since December 9, 2019.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
There is only one image on this article and it contains unsourced information. (Edit: There are now multiple images with sourcing.)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article is lacking in many areas. (Edit: Placed on hold to allow for edits.)

@Jon698: Thanks for pointing out what needs improving. Is it possible you could put this on hold to give me a chance to fix these issues? I expect to have time to fix them all before the end of this week. Otherwise I might have to wait half a year for it to get to the top of the queue again.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Okay although I didn't know there was a queue I just went and did the articles that were the easiest (:. I hope that you are able to bring the quality of this article up as it is very interesting. Jon698 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698: You are right it is not a strict queue. Glad you find it interesting. I have not looked at this article for a while and I think now that, as well as the too short sections you mention, the structure is confusing. So I will look again with a fresh eye - maybe tomorrow. Meanwhile if there are any missing or wrong cites feel free to sprinkle "citation needed" or other tags wherever necessary.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Jon698: I have made some changes. Please could you let me know what else I need to do to make the article good quality. As I am so familiar with it I may be missing specific problems with readability etc.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: It looks good now, but it is missing a history section of Turkey's past energy policies also there should be more stuff about provincial energy production. Jon698 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698: Have added some info. If anything else is needed please let me know.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: I am going to put this on hold and wait for a second opinion on this article. Continue the work as the article is looking great. Jon698 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

@Jon698, Chidgk1, and BlueMoonset: Kingsif (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this article poorly written enough to fail in that area, but it is shockingly low on coverage. While it is an overview, it doesn't even seem to give an overview, i.e. the section on politics is two short paragraphs, one of which is a list of state companies. There are a few places where references are needed, and the general distribution of where inline citations are is strange. I have seen editors completely renovate articles in a week, but since Chidgk1 was made aware a month ago, if only briefly, that there was a lack of coverage in the history section and said they were going to do something about that, for that section to still only be three sentences suggests that the article won't achieve sufficient coverage any time soon. To me, it looks like a quickfail based on being nowhere near meeting broadness criterion. Kingsif (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698 and BlueMoonset: I hadn't been looking at this recently because I was not sure what specifically needed to be fixed - I am not sure there is any more history available but I will try to find more. Now the broadness has been mentioned I will take a look - so if you could give me a little more time on this I would be grateful. @Kingsif: Thanks for checking this - not quite sure what the problem is with the distribution of inline citations and could you possibly tag the missing references with "citation needed"? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698, BlueMoonset, and Kingsif: I have added a bit more info but I guess I should not duplicate too much of what is already written in other articles: for example Coal_in_Turkey#History discusses the Ottoman and early Turkish Republic policy supporting coal for the navy and industry. Electricity is covered in Electricity_sector_in_Turkey#Policy_and_regulation and there is a whole article on Energy in Turkey. So do you think that is enough now or should I look for more? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Honestly, this and the Energy in Turkey articles are short enough that IMO I see no reason for them not to be merged. Kingsif (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698, BlueMoonset, and Kingsif: Aha I had not thought of that. Having considered it for all of 5 minutes a merger seems like a very good idea. Because since the articles were created many years ago several more specific articles have been created such as Coal in Turkey and Electricity sector in Turkey. So that means that even with this article merged in the Energy in Turkey article should not grow too big in future, because details can be put in those more specific articles. So I have proposed a merger and if it is accepted I will withdraw this GA nomination. Then later on once I have whipped the combined article into shape I will nominate that for GA. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698, BlueMoonset, and Kingsif: I have merged and hereby withdraw this nomination. Thank you so much for all your improvements. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I suppose, since this isn't an empty review, do we close it as fail without prejudice? Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, I closed it as a fail without prejudice a few hours ago—the original talk page still exists though the article itself is now a redirect, and thus can't pass. We're all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]