This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar power in Turkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Solar power 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 reassessit. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 8, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the solar water-heating market in Turkey is second in the world, after China's?
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The reason I moved it to "Solar energy in Turkey" was to make it match up with the "Solar energy" article, which is not just about electricity generation, whereas the "Solar Power" says "This article is about generation of electricity using solar energy. For other uses of solar energy, see Solar energy."
Should we not be consistent with those articles? Jzlcdh (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 06:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll be reviewing this. BigDom (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. | 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
Policies and laws
Economics
Heating and hot water
Photovoltaics
Concentrated Solar Power
@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)[reply]
Spot check on some references:
Please could these be addressed? BigDom (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
The result was: promotedbySL93 (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
)
Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Hello @Huggums537 - not a big deal but curious to know why you unlinked International Solar Energy Society Chidgk1 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]