Talk:Renewable energy in Turkey

cobuild reports

4 reports at https://www.cobenefits.info/country-studies-infographics/studies/turkey/ may be useful

Please review extracted articles first - thanks

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)

April 22 report

presume https://shura.org.tr/turkiye-elektrik-sistemine-yenilenebilir-enerji-kaynaklarinin-entegrasyonu/ will be translated to English soon

new sources need adding

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/37521/T%C3%BCrkiye%20CCDR%20Full%20Report.pdf

https://shura.org.tr/en/net-zero-2053-a-roadmap-for-the-turkish-electricity-sector/

Style of lead

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)

Thanks for that useful comment. If the new first sentence I have just added is not the best can you suggest better? I took a look at the featured article Renewable energy in Scotland but I don't really like their first sentence.

And could you expand on your second point - what opinions please? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

New source

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)

Needs a better lead pic

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)

put spa there for now Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Excerpts

@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)

More politics and history could be added

from the Carnegie cite “two phases” onwards Chidgk1 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Renewable energy in Turkey/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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 discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that coal and fossil gas is being subsidized by renewable energy in Turkey? Source: https://www.tskb.com.tr/uploads/file/energy-outlook-final.pdf page 9 “transferring money from solar, wind and hydroelectric power plants with low operating costs to power plants with high operating costs such as imported coal and natural gas”
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Medway Branch

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
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

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)

I know the hook is not great but I wanted to say something about renewable energy as a whole rather than one of the individual sources, as many of those have their own articles. Do you or anyone reading this have any hook suggestions? I will ask at a couple of project whether anyone else can think of a hookier hook. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the proposed hook idea is actually really interesting, as it is a specific economic intervention by the government in response to the war in Ukraine. Per the source, "the cost of natural gas and imported coal increased further due to geopolitical developments, which brought to the forefront the need to take certain measures in Türkiye to ensure energy supply security. The “Support Fee Based on Source” model was put into effect for a period of 6 months in order to protect the consumer, to prevent excessive increases in electricity prices and to commission the inoperative installed capacity...The Support Fee Based on Source model is based on transferring money from solar, wind and hydroelectric power plants with low operating costs to power plants with high operating costs such as imported coal and natural gas." (pages 8-9) Working that into the hook, how does say this work as a start?

ALT 1: "... that following the energy price shock caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Turkish government intervened to have the country's renewable energy subsidise coal and gas?"

CMD (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe it would be more interesting if it were simpler phrasing?:

ALT 2: "... that renewable energy in Turkey helps pay for fossil energy in Turkey?

Larataguera (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks @Chipmunkdavis: and @Larataguera: both those hooks look good to me Chidgk1 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I Guess these new hooks could work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)