![]() | Electricity sector in Turkey has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text should be larger - hope to get round to it soon. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2132178-lira-weakness-weighs-on-turkish-coal-generation-margins
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/blog/2020/august/26/coal-imports-help-turkish-economy-in-1h20
if so why dont they turn off all the dams at 6 a.m. when price lowest? some ecological reason?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ita140188 ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I will start the review soon. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
The article has already been through 2 GA reviews. I will summarize here the points (if any) that are still not resolved.
I will present here my comments.
Overall the article is concise, up to date, and well referenced. However, it would greatly benefit from a better organization of content (through fewer sections and more subsections), clearer prose, and some expansion of some sections. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
I am planning to review this article over the next 7 days. Reviewer: Marshelec ( talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I congratulate the editors for the large amount of work that has already gone into this article. This is a difficult topic to cover. However, as I have set out below, I do not consider that this article currently meets the GA criteria for prose and coverage.
The article contains many sections that are densely written - an assembly of short statements (typically statements of fact) with citations. The densely written content of these sections can be difficult to follow because of the lack of context or explanation of the facts presented, and lack of linkages between different ideas. Some examples of sections with this characteristic include: Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Policy and Regulation. Overall, it is too difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding. Most of these sections need expansion and re-writing for clarity so that the reader can understand the content. In addition, some of the factual statements presented are now out of date.
The longer sections are somewhat difficult to read because they lack sub-headings that would classify the individual topics within the section. A good example is Generation - although the topic appears to require expanding as well (see below).
The section: "Health, safety and resilience" brings together topics that are not a natural fit, and this is confusing for the reader. The topic of air pollution from coal fired plants could potentially be better covered as "Environmental impacts" as a subheading under Generation-coal.
The topic of "resilience" is covered briefly in the section "Health, safety and resilience", but it is not clear. Power system security is a large topic and would probably require an article on its own to make it broadly understandable. If government energy policy is seeking a move towards increased resilience at a local level, some content about this topic could be covered to some extent under Energy policy. If there have already been significant microgrids installed that have capability for islanded operation, this is potentially a sub-topic under Consumption, or Demand forecasting.
The section: "Future" is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage. It would probably be better to split the content and move it all back into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.
Content in some sections does not clearly fit with the heading. For example, the last paragraph in Consumption contains the sentence: "A group of four academics has suggested that the target of 32% from renewables by 2030 should be increased to at least 50%." This appears to be about Government policy, not consumption. In another example, the last paragraph of Transmission includes mention of solar power and pumped storage, but without clearly explaining how this is relevant to transmission.
While the article covers many of the topics that would be expected, some important matters are given insufficient or no coverage. The topic of decarbonisation of the electricity energy supply comes up in several places in the article, but is not clearly explained from a government policy perspective. It would be easier for the reader to understand the "story" underpinning much of this article, if a section on Energy policy was placed towards the top of the article, and expanded to provide an outline of the long term energy planning stance.
Done there is no decarbonization policy - added policy section
Chidgk1 (
talk) 11:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Following directly from the point above, the topic of Generation is of great importance to this article, but there is insufficient content about the generation sector as a whole, given its importance. A reasonable expectation would be at least a paragraph or two about each of the main sources of generation. The content about solar generation development is useful, and worthy of a subsection, but is currently out of balance with the rest of the section. It would help to move the graphic about generation by source to be alongside the Generation section. It would be best to avoid vague statements such as: "The state-owned Electricity Generation Company (EÜAŞ) has about 20% of the market,[66] and there are many private companies".
In another example, while there is a section on Policy and Regulation, there is no content about the structure of regulation (for example, what are the names and roles of the main regulatory authorities).
The section on Consumption contains some content about electric vehicle chargers, and electric vehicles. The topic of the electrification of transport is highly relevant for this article, but there is little development of content on this topic at present. It also probably fits better with Energy policy and planning and/or Demand forecasting.
The section on Transmission has no basic content about the transmission network - eg approximate system length, transmission voltages in use, number of transmission grid substations.
The section on Trade has no significant content about the wholesale electricity market, or any mention of the participants, the regulatory code or participation agreement that sets out the operating rules of the market, or the organisational roles (such as physical operation, clearing and reconciliation, settlement etc). Import/export is covered under Trade, but for clarity should probably be separate, or in a sub-heading.
There is no content about how retailing of electricity is conducted or retail pricing structured. For instance, is the distribution lines service provider also a monopoly electrical energy provider in their operating region, or is there retail competition (ie wires and energy unbundled), with a variety of energy traders operating over the transmission and distribution networks ?
At this stage, I will put further review on hold pending feedback, and will follow up in around 7 days.
Marshelec ( talk) 02:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The GA review process has been underway for 9 days. During that time, the nominator has made significant improvements to coverage of multiple topics including: Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Retailing. However, at this point, substantial issues remain, related to coverage and prose, but there are also some relatively minor issues with selection of images.
One significant issue for this GA review is the need for summary content where there is a "main" article linked. Here are some references, benchmarks and comments on this topic.
There is useful guidance about summary-style articles at WP:SUMMARY. It is also covered in WP:BETTER. The guidance indicates that the parent article should contain a section with a summary of the child article (as well as the link), and that there may be close similarity between the summary in the parent article and the lead in the sub-topic or child article. The criteria for Good Articles at WP:GA? does not cover summary style specifically, but the general assessment quality scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment lists the article Discovery of the neutron as a GA quality benchmark. This article shows the provision of significant summary content where there is a parent-child relationship with other articles. Another useful benchmark from the electricity sector is a GA-class article Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system that also shows the provision of summary content where there is a parent-child article relationship.
The current status of this article under review is that most instances of parent-child relationships do not include summary content. This particularly affects the Generation section and its sub-headings. The consequences are that the reader learns little about the generation sub-topic from the article as it stands. These generation types are highly important topics for this article, with profound implications for the electricity sector in Turkey. These topics require coverage at a summary level. Examples that require a summary of the sub-topic include the section: Hydro (where there is no content about installed capacity or overall significance and issues of hydro-electric generation, although there is content on these topics in the child article). The section about Gas does not have a summary of content about the gas-generation sector, such as installed capacity, issues, or explain whether the gas fuel is imported or domestically sourced. Note: It may also be appropriate to include in this summary, a mention of the recent find of gas in the Black Sea. [1] Another example without a summary is the section: Nuclear (where the existing content does not mention that the first nuclear generating facility in Turkey is to be commissioned in 2023).
The GA review process is to grade the quality of a single nominated article, not an interconnected web of related articles. Without summary content where a parent-child article link is provided, there is insufficient coverage in the parent article as it stands to meet the GA review criteria- Broad in its coverage, (provided that the sub-topic is clearly important to the subject of the article - and this is definitely the case for the generation sub-topics).
The article currently has multiple sections that are hard to follow because they are densely-written with little or no linkages of ideas between short factual statements in a single paragraph.
One particular example is the section: "Future". This section is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage. A suggestion for this section is to split the content and move it all back and merge it into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.
Another example is: "Economics and Finance". This is hard to follow because it covers a multitude of topics with minimal linkage of ideas. Some of the content appears to duplicate other sections. Again, this section may benefit from having all or most of the content relocated and merged into relevant sections elsewhere.
There is duplication between section 2:Policy, and section 11 Policy and regulation. These two sections should be revised and merged.
Overall, there is a need for review and improvement of readability throughout.
There would be benefit in reviewing the selection of images. GA review criteria requires that they are relevant. Guidance for relevance of images is given here: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. The key requirement is: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". The historic images in the article at present would be of relevance to an article specifically about the history of the electricity sector in Turkey, but are of marginal relevance for this article. Additional images would be worthwhile. The only power station image in the article at present is for a solar tower station. There are no images of other generation plants, or images relating to transmission, distribution or end use. The image of the driverless vehicle seems far more relevant to transport than to electricity.
At this stage, there are several options for next steps:
I seek feedback on the next steps. Marshelec ( talk) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Marshelec ( talk) 21:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.shura.org.tr/sector_coupling_for_grid_integration_of_wind_and_solar/
https://www.shura.org.tr/socioeconomic_impact_of_the_power_system_transition_in_turkey/
Marshelec or anyone. I am pondering making the generation subsections extracts from the leads of their detailed articles. The only source which does not have a detailed article at the moment is gas but with the recent Black Sea discovery I am thinking of starting an article Natural gas in Turkey analogous to Natural gas in the United States - so in that case the extract would be of a section rather than the lead. One advantage of using extracts would be to avoid duplicating text which would likely need updating at least annually. Can you see any disadvantages which would outweigh the advantages? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Marshelec or anyone. Can you see anything which is wrong or missing about the technology? I am thinking particularly of the "transmission" and "distribution" subsections. Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.pwc.com.tr/overview-of-the-turkish-electricity-market
https://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/Content/Images/CKeditorImages/20211103-20111678.pdf
I have created an illustration that may be useful in the History section of this article. It still needs tidying up, and I need to work out how to crop the background. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unbundling_of_the_electricity_sector_in_Turkey.svg Comments please. Marshelec ( talk) 04:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark83 ( talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC), Styyx ( talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Experience from previous reviews has shown me that some people hate this review table, i.e. it can make responses harder. I just find it keeps the review logical on my end. Please feel free to answer within the table, or below the table and refer to the item, e.g. 1a.1 - I will number all my comments to allow for this referencing.
At this point I need to raise a major concern about the use of {{excerpts}}. There are a lot of sections based on other articles, only one of which is a GA. I can't find a policy or guideline on this, but surely the text could and should be brought into this article so it is stable and the qualiy of the article can be monitored and maintained? To be honest if you disagree I'm minded to move to a QF or invite you to seek a second opinion on this point. Can you give me your thoughts on this please? Mark83 ( talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I have followed the progess of this article since being a previous GA reviewer. Great progress has been made, and I think that GA status is now within reach. Here are my main suggestions for tightening up the content:
07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Consumption section
Generation section
Geothermal section
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. |
More to follow as I work my way down. Mark83 ( talk) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
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. |
|
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
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). | |
![]() |
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. | No concerns. |
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. | Fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Lots of work to do here.
Mark83 ( talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Mark83 So you are looking for quick replies for the backlog competition in order to finish before the end of month? Or it makes no difference? Anyway I will hopefully be able to respond quickly. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Mark83 I hope you are well. Thank you for your really useful comments. Are you able to complete this review? Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello both the reviewer and nominator of the article, I would lay down some of my thoughts about the article below. Do take note that some may be a bit off from the GA criteria.
Hello! I've decided to pick this up. This is my first GA review, so make sure to slam dunk any complaints here or on my talk page in case I mess up. :)
I'd prefer not having too many excerpts. Coal power in Turkey is a GA itself, so I don't have any problem with this one. Having Wind power in Turkey in addition isn't a huge problem since there are no policies/guidelines/criterias regarding the usage of excerpts.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)This is what I've got for now. Pretty close,
GAN on hold.
~Styyx
Talk? ^-^ 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Oki, that's a pass! Make sure to nominate an interesting fact from the article for DYK. :)
~Styyx
Talk? 11:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
(below suggestions by Marshelec copied from User_talk:Marshelec#Electricity_sector_in_Turkey_-_resilience_section so others can easily comment if they wish
begin comment----------
The topic of resilience in electricity systems is multi-faceted, and is a challenge to describe briefly in an encyclopaedia. It is also likely to be difficult to find good sources to cite. Looking at the present content of this section, I think it would probably be best to delete it. I have added my comments in italics into a copy of the text in the Resilience section as it stands.
Earthquakes in Turkey are common and sometimes cut transmission lines and destroy substations.[148] After purchasing a property in an urban area earthquake insurance is compulsory before the electricity and other utilities are connected.[149] This is really about resilience of property owners, not the electricity sector. Because many of the trapped people rescued from rubble are located via their phones household earthquake preparedness includes keeping phones well charged and keeping plenty of batteries in the house.[150] This again is about civil defence preparedness, not the electricity sector.
In case of emergencies, distribution grids can be remotely controlled by SCADA.[151] Distribution grids are routinely controlled via SCADA. The source actually describes a mobile "command centre" that can be taken into an area following major disruption, to assist with recovery and restoration. It seems that it is intended to cover for the total loss of a major SCADA control centre. New Zealand has two national control centres in different locations, each of which can almost instantly take control of the entire grid if the other has to be evacuated or fails. Real resilience goes far beyond control centres. System resilience is designed in to the netwrok and its equipment. It includes appropriate seismic withstand (and other appropriate limit-state design criteria and protections), design levels of backup/redundancy, duplication, diverse comms routes, timely access to skilled people, equipment, spares, machinery. The installation of more local solar power with batteries and microgrids in vulnerable places might help vital buildings such as hospitals retain power after a natural disaster such as earthquake or flood. Academics suggest that cost–benefit analysis of such emergency power systems should take into account any benefits of resilience and also the cost of installing an islandable system.[152][153]I don't think this article needs to cover the topic of emergency power supplies.
The nationwide blackout in 2015 did not greatly affect Van Province as it was supplied from Iran,[154] the EU interconnection helped restore power,[155] and more integration with other countries would increase resilience.[156] This sentence could be relocated into the Transmission section.
end comment-----------
There is no agreed standard or design criteria that utilities and government should work together to enhance power systems resilience during catastrophic outages. Likewise, there is no common agreement on the level of resilience to lessen the impact of large-scale outages. Without consistent design standards, it is difficult for utility operators to build a system with a realistic and sensible level of resilience. Therefore, the design basis from the government is necessary that can provide the framework needed for investments to meet enhanced design criteria and preparedness standards. It should provide economic justification for hardening investments to receive regulatory approval and should serve as a basis to develop appropriate incentives.
Mark83 and anyone else - I very much doubt there are better sources on resilience here - do you have an opinion? should the section be deleted? if so should the text be moved elsewhere or deleted? Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone understand why the light grey band for "imported coal" at https://ytbsbilgi.teias.gov.tr/ytbsbilgi/frm_istatistikler.jsf stays almost constant?
Because we can see from https://seffaflik.epias.com.tr/transparency/piyasalar/gop/ptf.xhtml that the price is usually less in the small hours of the morning so why don't they ramp down around midnight and back up again around 6 a.m.? Several big plants were built in the 2010s and so don't receive capacity payments. And presumably being new they would be capable of ramping. For example if we look at Cenal at https://seffaflik.epias.com.tr/transparency/uretim/gerceklesen-uretim/gercek-zamanli-uretim.xhtml it has run constantly so far this month.
I understand gas is expensive now but if we look back to a day in 2020 it is still flat.
Anyone any idea why?
Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Here are some thoughts about new topics that could possibly be included in the article, if suitable sources are available:
Are there any regularly published reports about quality of service (eg using measures such as SAIDI and SAIFI), or any other customer service indicators ? Regulators may set mandatory disclosure requirements for distribution businesses to make this information public. Many sources cover electricity generation supply security, but it would add to the article if some information about quality of supply at the distribution level is available.
Turkey is a large country and presumably has some areas that are sparsely populated and a great distance from the main electricity networks. In some countries, stand-alone power systems are used in these situations, either because the remote area has never been connected to the grid, or alternatively, that the costs of renewal of very long distribution infrastructure serving a remote region are so great that stand-alone power systems are an economical alternative (and may possibly also bring reliability benefits). Are there any sources about notable instances (or controversies) concerning remote areas and the provision of stand-alone power systems in Turkey? Marshelec ( talk) 00:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I note the following comment in a (possibly self-serving) news release by the association of electricity distributors: "In the past year, natural gas prices have increased up to 10 times, and imported coal prices have increased up to five times on a foreign currency basis." (HA/VK)" [7]. If this claim is supportable with other sources, it is highly material to this article and worth including, because it speaks directly to the urgent need for Turkey to become more self-sufficient in generation and less dependent upon imported fuel. It is also relevant to the increasing competitiveness of generation from wind and solar. On the other hand, it may have the less desirable effect of further increasing the government support for lignite fueled generation. Marshelec ( talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 20:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 ( talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC).
If you can let me know which are interesting I will cite them. Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Cited ALT6 and requested copyedit. Chidgk1 ( talk) 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
F means "fiyat" (price) so A and O must be Turkish words
https://www.epias.com.tr/en/spot-electricity-market Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Barny22: - where did you get that percentage from please? Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/turkiye-electricity-review-2023/
https://www.pwc.com.tr/tr/sektorler/enerji/overview-of-turkish-electricity-market-2023.pdf
Also when updating check shura for any new english reports
![]() | Electricity sector in Turkey has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text should be larger - hope to get round to it soon. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2132178-lira-weakness-weighs-on-turkish-coal-generation-margins
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/blog/2020/august/26/coal-imports-help-turkish-economy-in-1h20
if so why dont they turn off all the dams at 6 a.m. when price lowest? some ecological reason?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ita140188 ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I will start the review soon. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 03:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
The article has already been through 2 GA reviews. I will summarize here the points (if any) that are still not resolved.
I will present here my comments.
Overall the article is concise, up to date, and well referenced. However, it would greatly benefit from a better organization of content (through fewer sections and more subsections), clearer prose, and some expansion of some sections. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
I am planning to review this article over the next 7 days. Reviewer: Marshelec ( talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I congratulate the editors for the large amount of work that has already gone into this article. This is a difficult topic to cover. However, as I have set out below, I do not consider that this article currently meets the GA criteria for prose and coverage.
The article contains many sections that are densely written - an assembly of short statements (typically statements of fact) with citations. The densely written content of these sections can be difficult to follow because of the lack of context or explanation of the facts presented, and lack of linkages between different ideas. Some examples of sections with this characteristic include: Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Policy and Regulation. Overall, it is too difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding. Most of these sections need expansion and re-writing for clarity so that the reader can understand the content. In addition, some of the factual statements presented are now out of date.
The longer sections are somewhat difficult to read because they lack sub-headings that would classify the individual topics within the section. A good example is Generation - although the topic appears to require expanding as well (see below).
The section: "Health, safety and resilience" brings together topics that are not a natural fit, and this is confusing for the reader. The topic of air pollution from coal fired plants could potentially be better covered as "Environmental impacts" as a subheading under Generation-coal.
The topic of "resilience" is covered briefly in the section "Health, safety and resilience", but it is not clear. Power system security is a large topic and would probably require an article on its own to make it broadly understandable. If government energy policy is seeking a move towards increased resilience at a local level, some content about this topic could be covered to some extent under Energy policy. If there have already been significant microgrids installed that have capability for islanded operation, this is potentially a sub-topic under Consumption, or Demand forecasting.
The section: "Future" is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage. It would probably be better to split the content and move it all back into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.
Content in some sections does not clearly fit with the heading. For example, the last paragraph in Consumption contains the sentence: "A group of four academics has suggested that the target of 32% from renewables by 2030 should be increased to at least 50%." This appears to be about Government policy, not consumption. In another example, the last paragraph of Transmission includes mention of solar power and pumped storage, but without clearly explaining how this is relevant to transmission.
While the article covers many of the topics that would be expected, some important matters are given insufficient or no coverage. The topic of decarbonisation of the electricity energy supply comes up in several places in the article, but is not clearly explained from a government policy perspective. It would be easier for the reader to understand the "story" underpinning much of this article, if a section on Energy policy was placed towards the top of the article, and expanded to provide an outline of the long term energy planning stance.
Done there is no decarbonization policy - added policy section
Chidgk1 (
talk) 11:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Following directly from the point above, the topic of Generation is of great importance to this article, but there is insufficient content about the generation sector as a whole, given its importance. A reasonable expectation would be at least a paragraph or two about each of the main sources of generation. The content about solar generation development is useful, and worthy of a subsection, but is currently out of balance with the rest of the section. It would help to move the graphic about generation by source to be alongside the Generation section. It would be best to avoid vague statements such as: "The state-owned Electricity Generation Company (EÜAŞ) has about 20% of the market,[66] and there are many private companies".
In another example, while there is a section on Policy and Regulation, there is no content about the structure of regulation (for example, what are the names and roles of the main regulatory authorities).
The section on Consumption contains some content about electric vehicle chargers, and electric vehicles. The topic of the electrification of transport is highly relevant for this article, but there is little development of content on this topic at present. It also probably fits better with Energy policy and planning and/or Demand forecasting.
The section on Transmission has no basic content about the transmission network - eg approximate system length, transmission voltages in use, number of transmission grid substations.
The section on Trade has no significant content about the wholesale electricity market, or any mention of the participants, the regulatory code or participation agreement that sets out the operating rules of the market, or the organisational roles (such as physical operation, clearing and reconciliation, settlement etc). Import/export is covered under Trade, but for clarity should probably be separate, or in a sub-heading.
There is no content about how retailing of electricity is conducted or retail pricing structured. For instance, is the distribution lines service provider also a monopoly electrical energy provider in their operating region, or is there retail competition (ie wires and energy unbundled), with a variety of energy traders operating over the transmission and distribution networks ?
At this stage, I will put further review on hold pending feedback, and will follow up in around 7 days.
Marshelec ( talk) 02:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The GA review process has been underway for 9 days. During that time, the nominator has made significant improvements to coverage of multiple topics including: Trade, Transmission, Distribution, Retailing. However, at this point, substantial issues remain, related to coverage and prose, but there are also some relatively minor issues with selection of images.
One significant issue for this GA review is the need for summary content where there is a "main" article linked. Here are some references, benchmarks and comments on this topic.
There is useful guidance about summary-style articles at WP:SUMMARY. It is also covered in WP:BETTER. The guidance indicates that the parent article should contain a section with a summary of the child article (as well as the link), and that there may be close similarity between the summary in the parent article and the lead in the sub-topic or child article. The criteria for Good Articles at WP:GA? does not cover summary style specifically, but the general assessment quality scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment lists the article Discovery of the neutron as a GA quality benchmark. This article shows the provision of significant summary content where there is a parent-child relationship with other articles. Another useful benchmark from the electricity sector is a GA-class article Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system that also shows the provision of summary content where there is a parent-child article relationship.
The current status of this article under review is that most instances of parent-child relationships do not include summary content. This particularly affects the Generation section and its sub-headings. The consequences are that the reader learns little about the generation sub-topic from the article as it stands. These generation types are highly important topics for this article, with profound implications for the electricity sector in Turkey. These topics require coverage at a summary level. Examples that require a summary of the sub-topic include the section: Hydro (where there is no content about installed capacity or overall significance and issues of hydro-electric generation, although there is content on these topics in the child article). The section about Gas does not have a summary of content about the gas-generation sector, such as installed capacity, issues, or explain whether the gas fuel is imported or domestically sourced. Note: It may also be appropriate to include in this summary, a mention of the recent find of gas in the Black Sea. [1] Another example without a summary is the section: Nuclear (where the existing content does not mention that the first nuclear generating facility in Turkey is to be commissioned in 2023).
The GA review process is to grade the quality of a single nominated article, not an interconnected web of related articles. Without summary content where a parent-child article link is provided, there is insufficient coverage in the parent article as it stands to meet the GA review criteria- Broad in its coverage, (provided that the sub-topic is clearly important to the subject of the article - and this is definitely the case for the generation sub-topics).
The article currently has multiple sections that are hard to follow because they are densely-written with little or no linkages of ideas between short factual statements in a single paragraph.
One particular example is the section: "Future". This section is hard to follow because it presents too many facts without adequate linkage. A suggestion for this section is to split the content and move it all back and merge it into sections on Energy Policy, Generation etc, so that those sections have some forward-looking content.
Another example is: "Economics and Finance". This is hard to follow because it covers a multitude of topics with minimal linkage of ideas. Some of the content appears to duplicate other sections. Again, this section may benefit from having all or most of the content relocated and merged into relevant sections elsewhere.
There is duplication between section 2:Policy, and section 11 Policy and regulation. These two sections should be revised and merged.
Overall, there is a need for review and improvement of readability throughout.
There would be benefit in reviewing the selection of images. GA review criteria requires that they are relevant. Guidance for relevance of images is given here: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. The key requirement is: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". The historic images in the article at present would be of relevance to an article specifically about the history of the electricity sector in Turkey, but are of marginal relevance for this article. Additional images would be worthwhile. The only power station image in the article at present is for a solar tower station. There are no images of other generation plants, or images relating to transmission, distribution or end use. The image of the driverless vehicle seems far more relevant to transport than to electricity.
At this stage, there are several options for next steps:
I seek feedback on the next steps. Marshelec ( talk) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Marshelec ( talk) 21:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.shura.org.tr/sector_coupling_for_grid_integration_of_wind_and_solar/
https://www.shura.org.tr/socioeconomic_impact_of_the_power_system_transition_in_turkey/
Marshelec or anyone. I am pondering making the generation subsections extracts from the leads of their detailed articles. The only source which does not have a detailed article at the moment is gas but with the recent Black Sea discovery I am thinking of starting an article Natural gas in Turkey analogous to Natural gas in the United States - so in that case the extract would be of a section rather than the lead. One advantage of using extracts would be to avoid duplicating text which would likely need updating at least annually. Can you see any disadvantages which would outweigh the advantages? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Marshelec or anyone. Can you see anything which is wrong or missing about the technology? I am thinking particularly of the "transmission" and "distribution" subsections. Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.pwc.com.tr/overview-of-the-turkish-electricity-market
https://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/Content/Images/CKeditorImages/20211103-20111678.pdf
I have created an illustration that may be useful in the History section of this article. It still needs tidying up, and I need to work out how to crop the background. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unbundling_of_the_electricity_sector_in_Turkey.svg Comments please. Marshelec ( talk) 04:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark83 ( talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC), Styyx ( talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Experience from previous reviews has shown me that some people hate this review table, i.e. it can make responses harder. I just find it keeps the review logical on my end. Please feel free to answer within the table, or below the table and refer to the item, e.g. 1a.1 - I will number all my comments to allow for this referencing.
At this point I need to raise a major concern about the use of {{excerpts}}. There are a lot of sections based on other articles, only one of which is a GA. I can't find a policy or guideline on this, but surely the text could and should be brought into this article so it is stable and the qualiy of the article can be monitored and maintained? To be honest if you disagree I'm minded to move to a QF or invite you to seek a second opinion on this point. Can you give me your thoughts on this please? Mark83 ( talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I have followed the progess of this article since being a previous GA reviewer. Great progress has been made, and I think that GA status is now within reach. Here are my main suggestions for tightening up the content:
07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Consumption section
Generation section
Geothermal section
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. |
More to follow as I work my way down. Mark83 ( talk) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
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. |
|
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
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). | |
![]() |
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. | No concerns. |
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. | Fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Lots of work to do here.
Mark83 ( talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Mark83 So you are looking for quick replies for the backlog competition in order to finish before the end of month? Or it makes no difference? Anyway I will hopefully be able to respond quickly. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Mark83 I hope you are well. Thank you for your really useful comments. Are you able to complete this review? Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello both the reviewer and nominator of the article, I would lay down some of my thoughts about the article below. Do take note that some may be a bit off from the GA criteria.
Hello! I've decided to pick this up. This is my first GA review, so make sure to slam dunk any complaints here or on my talk page in case I mess up. :)
I'd prefer not having too many excerpts. Coal power in Turkey is a GA itself, so I don't have any problem with this one. Having Wind power in Turkey in addition isn't a huge problem since there are no policies/guidelines/criterias regarding the usage of excerpts.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)This is what I've got for now. Pretty close,
GAN on hold.
~Styyx
Talk? ^-^ 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Oki, that's a pass! Make sure to nominate an interesting fact from the article for DYK. :)
~Styyx
Talk? 11:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
(below suggestions by Marshelec copied from User_talk:Marshelec#Electricity_sector_in_Turkey_-_resilience_section so others can easily comment if they wish
begin comment----------
The topic of resilience in electricity systems is multi-faceted, and is a challenge to describe briefly in an encyclopaedia. It is also likely to be difficult to find good sources to cite. Looking at the present content of this section, I think it would probably be best to delete it. I have added my comments in italics into a copy of the text in the Resilience section as it stands.
Earthquakes in Turkey are common and sometimes cut transmission lines and destroy substations.[148] After purchasing a property in an urban area earthquake insurance is compulsory before the electricity and other utilities are connected.[149] This is really about resilience of property owners, not the electricity sector. Because many of the trapped people rescued from rubble are located via their phones household earthquake preparedness includes keeping phones well charged and keeping plenty of batteries in the house.[150] This again is about civil defence preparedness, not the electricity sector.
In case of emergencies, distribution grids can be remotely controlled by SCADA.[151] Distribution grids are routinely controlled via SCADA. The source actually describes a mobile "command centre" that can be taken into an area following major disruption, to assist with recovery and restoration. It seems that it is intended to cover for the total loss of a major SCADA control centre. New Zealand has two national control centres in different locations, each of which can almost instantly take control of the entire grid if the other has to be evacuated or fails. Real resilience goes far beyond control centres. System resilience is designed in to the netwrok and its equipment. It includes appropriate seismic withstand (and other appropriate limit-state design criteria and protections), design levels of backup/redundancy, duplication, diverse comms routes, timely access to skilled people, equipment, spares, machinery. The installation of more local solar power with batteries and microgrids in vulnerable places might help vital buildings such as hospitals retain power after a natural disaster such as earthquake or flood. Academics suggest that cost–benefit analysis of such emergency power systems should take into account any benefits of resilience and also the cost of installing an islandable system.[152][153]I don't think this article needs to cover the topic of emergency power supplies.
The nationwide blackout in 2015 did not greatly affect Van Province as it was supplied from Iran,[154] the EU interconnection helped restore power,[155] and more integration with other countries would increase resilience.[156] This sentence could be relocated into the Transmission section.
end comment-----------
There is no agreed standard or design criteria that utilities and government should work together to enhance power systems resilience during catastrophic outages. Likewise, there is no common agreement on the level of resilience to lessen the impact of large-scale outages. Without consistent design standards, it is difficult for utility operators to build a system with a realistic and sensible level of resilience. Therefore, the design basis from the government is necessary that can provide the framework needed for investments to meet enhanced design criteria and preparedness standards. It should provide economic justification for hardening investments to receive regulatory approval and should serve as a basis to develop appropriate incentives.
Mark83 and anyone else - I very much doubt there are better sources on resilience here - do you have an opinion? should the section be deleted? if so should the text be moved elsewhere or deleted? Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone understand why the light grey band for "imported coal" at https://ytbsbilgi.teias.gov.tr/ytbsbilgi/frm_istatistikler.jsf stays almost constant?
Because we can see from https://seffaflik.epias.com.tr/transparency/piyasalar/gop/ptf.xhtml that the price is usually less in the small hours of the morning so why don't they ramp down around midnight and back up again around 6 a.m.? Several big plants were built in the 2010s and so don't receive capacity payments. And presumably being new they would be capable of ramping. For example if we look at Cenal at https://seffaflik.epias.com.tr/transparency/uretim/gerceklesen-uretim/gercek-zamanli-uretim.xhtml it has run constantly so far this month.
I understand gas is expensive now but if we look back to a day in 2020 it is still flat.
Anyone any idea why?
Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Here are some thoughts about new topics that could possibly be included in the article, if suitable sources are available:
Are there any regularly published reports about quality of service (eg using measures such as SAIDI and SAIFI), or any other customer service indicators ? Regulators may set mandatory disclosure requirements for distribution businesses to make this information public. Many sources cover electricity generation supply security, but it would add to the article if some information about quality of supply at the distribution level is available.
Turkey is a large country and presumably has some areas that are sparsely populated and a great distance from the main electricity networks. In some countries, stand-alone power systems are used in these situations, either because the remote area has never been connected to the grid, or alternatively, that the costs of renewal of very long distribution infrastructure serving a remote region are so great that stand-alone power systems are an economical alternative (and may possibly also bring reliability benefits). Are there any sources about notable instances (or controversies) concerning remote areas and the provision of stand-alone power systems in Turkey? Marshelec ( talk) 00:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I note the following comment in a (possibly self-serving) news release by the association of electricity distributors: "In the past year, natural gas prices have increased up to 10 times, and imported coal prices have increased up to five times on a foreign currency basis." (HA/VK)" [7]. If this claim is supportable with other sources, it is highly material to this article and worth including, because it speaks directly to the urgent need for Turkey to become more self-sufficient in generation and less dependent upon imported fuel. It is also relevant to the increasing competitiveness of generation from wind and solar. On the other hand, it may have the less desirable effect of further increasing the government support for lignite fueled generation. Marshelec ( talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 20:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 ( talk). Self-nominated at 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC).
If you can let me know which are interesting I will cite them. Chidgk1 ( talk) 09:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Cited ALT6 and requested copyedit. Chidgk1 ( talk) 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
F means "fiyat" (price) so A and O must be Turkish words
https://www.epias.com.tr/en/spot-electricity-market Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Barny22: - where did you get that percentage from please? Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/turkiye-electricity-review-2023/
https://www.pwc.com.tr/tr/sektorler/enerji/overview-of-turkish-electricity-market-2023.pdf
Also when updating check shura for any new english reports