Talk:Coal power in Turkey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JackFromWisconsin (talk · contribs) 13:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting this review. Expect to see comments within the week. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments

In the lead, the location of the "However, government policy supports continued generation from low quality Turkish lignite." sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. It would be better located in the third paragraph, in which you introduce Turkish lignite.

Done. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Older coal-fired power stations emit air pollution, which damages public health.", both old and new plants generate air pollution.
- Looking in the body, "Some of the older power stations emit air pollution which affects people locally, but there is not enough public data to make good estimates of how much gets past 2020s filters and into peoples lungs." is not properly supported by its citations. I checked the sources you gave, and they do not mention that air pollution is only from older power stations.

I am being a bit cautious here as I am not sure I have enough sources to back up the "damaging health" claim for newer power stations. Some only started generating within the past few years, so I doubt there is enough data yet for conclusive studies. I am guessing that Emba Hunutlu power station will be the last coal-fired plant ever built here, and that may startup later this year. So I hope new studies will be done as the cost of air quality monitoring is now low enough to be widely done by NGOs. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand not having data on recent power plants. However, the language specifically saying "older power stations" seems to imply that the newer plants don't emit air pollution. Looking at one of the sources: "The use of coal for industrial facilities, including coal-fired thermal power plants, and for domestic heating were the main causes of pollution."([1]) This was published less than 6 months ago, and doesn't make any difference in air quality between newer and older. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the reason I cited that article is because it is in English whereas the report it is based on was only in Turkish (my Turkish is only intermediate level). But I see the report has now been translated. It is based on an analysis of 2016 to 2019 data because 4 years is necessary because the official monitoring stations were not properly maintained so there are data gaps - so with 5 coal-fired power stations starting up during those 4 years I don't think the source meets medical standards for those Chidgk1 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited Dark Report in English and rephrased lead slightly Chidgk1 (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1:, so still a few issues that need to be addressed. For one, I am going to need a page number and ideally an excerpt from the report that backs up your statement. Now, I have went through the report, and was unable to back up the "older" stations part. Below I will rewrite the sentences assuming that no where in the report does it differentiate between older and newer power stations.

"Air pollution from older coal-fired power stations is damaging public health", rewritten: "Air pollution from coal-fired power stations is damaging public health"

"Some of the older power stations emit air pollution which affects people locally, but there is not enough public data to make good estimates of how much gets past 2020s filters and into peoples lungs.", rewritten: "Coal power stations emit air pollution, which affects residents living nearby. (If the source says how much the modern filters are better than the older ones, include it. If they don't, then don't.)

--JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right the report does not explicitly distinguish between older and newer. Perhaps I am being a bit pedantic but I am concerned about being challenged something like this if Emba Hunutlu starts up in a few months time once the imported coal price falls: the owner of Emba Hunutlu could say - "our coal plant is clean and safe" - and I would have no evidence to prove that it was not. Whereas if one of the plants which fitted filters in 2020 said "our coal plant is clean and safe" I could say "Well maybe it is or maybe it isn't, but the Black Report proves that the pollution you emitted in the past is still causing health problems now." So the statement as written remains true. Of course I hope there will be further more detailed studies now PM 2.5 monitors have got so cheap. Anyway you are quite right I need to put a page number and quote. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Chidgk1:, your quote doesn't support the "older" wording. "Afşin Elbistan Coal Fired Power Plant is estimated to have caused 17,000 premature deaths ........In Muğla, it is estimated that 45,000 premature deaths happened due to air pollution related to the 3 coal-fired thermal power plants since 1983." presents data, but does not make any synthesis or development on the data. From what I've read, and the quotes and page numbers you've provided, I have not seen any written difference in the pollution of older and newer power plants. The report doesn't make this distinction (on page 48): "Coal-fired thermal power plants threaten the health of humans as well as the environment both in the area they operate and in the entire country". Wikipedia has policies that forbid original research from articles, and especially good articles. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 21:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I could write "According to the Right to Clean Air Platform coal-fired thermal power plants threaten the health of humans as well as the environment both in the area they operate and in the entire country". But for sure the owners of Emba Hunutlu dispute that. So I could follow that with "According to the owners of Emba Hunutlu, it will start generating in 2022 and .............. (whatever they say about health)" What do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't worry about the Emba Hunutlu facility unless/until data comes out that its any different. I think the current Air Pollution section is fine now. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under Energy Policy, the see also link doesn't point to any specific section. I would point to the section you intended to, or add an anchor to the Energy in Turkey article.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance the capital cost of building 10 GW of coal-power would fund construction of 25 GW of solar power (annual peak electricity demand is on summer afternoons).[24]" is duplicated.

Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is a wiki and cannot be cited. Additionally, I am not seeing a citation for the claim that the Yunus Emre power station isn't producing power. However, looking at the gem.wiki article, the Funda Gacal, Anne Stauffer (January 2021). Chronic coal pollution Turkey: The health burden caused by coal power in Turkey and how to stop the coal addiction (PDF) (Report). Health and Environment Alliance. p. 23. Retrieved 5 January 2022. source backs up the claim that the plant is not producing power. So use that source and get rid of the gem.wiki source.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"3,000 kcal / kg" spaces shouldn't be between the units.

Done - by the way if you prefer to correct any minor stuff directly feel free - I can always revert if you accidentally change the meaning Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The existing images are fine, but is it possible to add a few more images to this article? If one exists for the Generation section that'd be great, however not required for GA. Additionally one could fit in the Coal industry section of a local coal mine, or maybe even showing off both a coal mine and adjacent plant.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The health effects graph is a little small, could this be increased to 330px across?

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under Sources one of the listed items is missing a bullet.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the category from see also. The Coal in Turkey article linked above is adequate.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some reviewers don't like citations in the lead. I personally don't care, as long as all material and sources generally appear in the body.

Comments by Marshelec

As a minor point of presentation, all instances of the symbol for carbon dioxide in the body of the article text should be rendered as CO₂, using the template {{CO2}}.Marshelec (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done (except direct quotes) - more comments welcome Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading Generation, this sentence needs work: "According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance the capital cost of building 10 GW of coal-power would fund construction of 25 GW of solar power (annual peak electricity demand is on summer afternoons)". My view is that the content in brackets is not essential here. If it is retained, it should be expanded to make the explanation clear.Marshelec (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Chidgk1 (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading: Air pollution, the mention of 2020s filters in this sentence is unclear, and needs expansion: "Some of the older power stations emit air pollution which makes local people ill or kills them, but there is not enough public data to make good estimates of how much gets past 2020s filters and into peoples lungs" Marshelec (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to clarify - please tell me what is still unclear Chidgk1 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel its not clarified enough. There is not enough public data to make good estimates of how much pollution gets past 2020s filters and into peoples lungs: because many government ambient air monitoring points are defective and also do not measure PM2.5, which is the most dangerous pollutant but has no legal limit. (current), I suggest rewording it as such: There is not enough data regarding modern filters, due to many government ambient air monitoring points not measuring fine particulate matter. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also under the heading Air pollution, the sentence beginning:"2019 early deaths due to coal power air pollution ..." would be easier to read if reworded: "Early deaths in 2019 due to air pollution caused by coal power ....."Marshelec (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section Ash would benefit from adding an introductory sentence, perhaps something like: "The mineral residue that remains from burning coal is known as coal ash, and contains toxic substances that may pose a health risk to workers in coal-fired power plants and people living or working near coal ash disposal sites". If this addition is made, then the word "unhealthy" can be removed from the existing first sentence for improved readability. Also, in the table of environmental inspection criteria related to ash, it would be better to have a tick rather than a cross, given that the mark is intended to signify that the evidence is present, whereas an "X" in common usage often represents a failure or absence.Marshelec (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the section: Taxes, subsidies and incentives, the first sentence needs significant expansion and clarification. If lignite-fuelled power stations are guaranteed to be dispatched (authorised to generate) if they are available, irrespective of their merit order (in terms of cost per unit or bid into the spot market), then this needs to be stated clearly, with some background about the commercial/regulatory/administrative instruments that determine this approach, plus some form of explanation about the many consequences of this incentive/ market distortion. This will probably mean providing a simple explanation of capacity payments. I suggest that it is not sufficient to rely on the wiki-linked Electricity market article alone. The consequences should be elaborated (if you can find a suitable source !) Marshelec (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting - I cannot now find the source I used - deleted as likely a mistake Chidgk1 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the Taxes, subsidies and incentives section, I found it confusing to have prices quoted in different currencies with no conversions. In the same section, the sentence beginning: "Around the turn of the century government incentives were offered to build cogeneration plants.. " needs minor rework for clarity. Possible alternative: "From around 2000, the government offered incentives to build cogeneration plants.." Marshelec (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added dollar amounts but am reluctant to change the cogen statement to your suggestion as I don't have any sources for recent cogen incentives so I don't know if they still exist. Changed "turn of century" to 2000 in case any reader thinks 1900. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new section on Flexibility could do with some introductory sentences. How about: "Turkey plans to substantially increase the contribution of solar and wind power to its mix of generation. Cost-effective system operation with a high proportion of these intermittent generation sources requires system flexibility, where other sources of generation can be ramped up or down promptly in response to changes in intermittent generation. However, conventional coal-fired generation may not have the flexibility required to accommodate a large proportion of solar and wind power." Marshelec (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done - excellent text thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence under the Generation heading could be improved for better readability. Plus, it does not seem essential to mention the transport issue at this point in the section. How about two shorter sentences: "Coal-fired power stations generate approximately one third of the nation's electricity.[12] In 2020, 62 TWh was generated from imported coal and 44 TWh from local coal (almost all lignite).[13][note 1 " Marshelec (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you improve the last phrase of this sentence under the heading Greenhouse gas emissions?: "However public information from space-based measurements of carbon dioxide by Climate TRACE is expected to reveal individual large plants in 2022,[71] and smaller ones by GOSAT-GW in 2023 and Sentinel-7 (CO2M) possibly in 2025.". The issues at present include that the 2023 and 2025 are wikilinks to pages about space flights, but read like years, and there are no conventional in-line citations. Can you add inline citations ? The (CO2M) is confusing, and would be best either left out, or expanded. I think it means "Copernicus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Monitoring"Marshelec (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor point of formatting, there are a few numbers of 4 digits or more that are not represented with a comma (see 2000 and 5000 under Air pollution, and 11380 in Note 4. Commas are needed for consistency, as per WP:DIGITS Marshelec (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done some but I think "1320 MW" is more readable without a comma. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIGITS allows for the lack of comma for 4 digits, so not a big deal. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, but it also asks for consistency within one article. I agree it is a minor point, but mentioned this initially because 2000 could be a year. Marshelec (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1320 MW number will probably only be in the article for a couple of months because when/if Emba Hunutlu starts up it can be removed as excess detail. So then everything will be consistent I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up (citation work)

Alright, most issues have been addressed. I will now go through the article again and give some final feedback on how to reach the last few criteria. For the following, I am referencing the most recent revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coal_power_in_Turkey&oldid=1065031806)

I have done some copyediting since then so the current version may be a little more readable Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend archiving all references (manually or with this tool)

Done with tool (didn't know about that tool thanks) Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All references should at minimum have the "referenced" date field, and other important reference data. Most are good, but there are a few that just have the title and URL link.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for citation 59 (Aytaç (2020)), it doesn't have a page number. Is this something you could add?

The whole 18 pages are about the subject Chidgk1 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 84 has 2 page numbers, 176 from the sfn, and 109 from the rp. Are you trying to cite both of them, or just one?

Fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 68 (Atilgan et al (2016), p. 177) doesn't have a corresponding bibliographic source. Could you add the source to the sources subsection?

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 67 (TarantoAydınalp_KöksalDal (2020), p. 10.) is messy, could you make sure the names are spaced correctly?

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Also many are defective.", should be incorporated into the previous sentence, There is not enough data regarding modern filters, due to many government ambient air monitoring points both being defective and not measuring fine particulate matter.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status

All issues addressed, article copyedited, all citations are verifiable. Article is good to-go. Great work @Chidgk1:!

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·