User:Canvas1010student/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_Problems_of_Linguistics)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose to evaluate the article "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics." The Wikipedia article could become stand-alone despite being classified as an outline. The article's subject is a subsection of the Pravda. The Pravda's Wikipedia page does not include a breakdown of the individual sections in the newspaper. My preliminary impression was that it fit the Category C of quality classification.

Lead Section
The introductory section in "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics" is clear but not concise. It is about an article by Joseph Stalin published in the Pravda newspaper and an unnamed pamphlet. The Wikipedia article states that "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics" is an article in the newspaper Pravada and was published in an unnamed pamphlet. However, it does not describe the topic of the Wikipedia page. The lead section does not briefly describe the article's major sections. The article does not have major sections and, therefore, lacks content about the body. As there are no further sections outside the lead section, the lead does not include information not present in the article. The lead is not concise nor overly detailed, as it has little substance.

Content
The article's content has some relevance to the topic. The introduction provides little mention of the historical context and related figures. There is significant content missing. With what is mentioned in the introduction, there is no hint of the "discussion" the author mentioned contained in "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics." It is unknown what the "discussion" is. However, it could relate to the broader discourse on the Japhetic theory and Marxism. The mentioned content from the "discussion" in "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics" did not bring "much new." What the previous knowledge or literature that the article doesn't add to is unknown. The article gives a possible explanation of the "impossibility" of arguing with Stalin. The article is not up to date. The last revision was on March 20, 2022, with the addition of citations. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The article is not written in a neutral tone. There are biases toward the significance and information in the original Marxism and Problems of Linguistics. The content and full context in the original text the Wikipedia article writes about are absent. However, the author writes their opinion that the discussion piece “lingered a little while longer” and “didn’t bring much new,” showing their opinion about the text. I interrupt the tone as slightly confident and informal, using words and phrases such as impossibility, full turn, attacking, old, impossibility, “decisively finishing, acceptability, and “effectively shifted.” A comment on the Talk page mentions systemic liberalism and a liberal point of view in Wikipedia. The user says the article promotes 20th-century Cold War propaganda and Wikipedia should be used for “the scientifically established truth (FelipeForte, 2020). A more liberal viewpoint might be overrepresented in the article with misrepresentation and lack of the Marxist view from that time. With the lack of content and a limited introduction, I do not know if minority or fringe viewpoints are accurately described. The article tries to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
A reliable secondary source of information is included in the References and backs up some facts in the article. This source is "Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars," written by Ethan Pollock and published by Princeton University Press. Marxist.org was the other source used in the article. Both sources are thorough. Neither source is current as Pollock's work was published in 2006, and the website article uses the "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics" first published in 1950. The notes on the website use sources before the 21st century, with the most recent in 1958. The sources are not written with a diverse spectrum of authors. I have not done a deep review of Polluck's source to say whether or not historically marginalized communities were included when possible. The source from marxist.org does not appear to include historically marginalized communities. There are more sources available to use. The links in the articles work.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is not well-written, and it is incomplete. There is only an introduction section that doesn’t have all the necessary information. The article has spelling and grammatical errors. The first sentence has information that can be separated into individual sentences. It is in a run-on sentence with unrelated clauses. On a new line, a paragraph provides further initial details on the Wikipedia article's topic. The sentence and paragraph should be combined to make a less awake transition. It will help the start of the article to be more concise as more progress is made. The article isn’t complete with the introduction worked on. Therefore, the article isn’t yet organized well.

Images and Media
Images are not included in this article.

Talk Page Discussion
The conversations about the Wikipedia article "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics" are about the credibility of the current sources, further references, grammar, and tone. Two users have provided sources that the author can use. One user offers two quotes from two books as examples of the Marxist practice the article refers to help make it more accurate. Another user suggests using the article in the Russian Wikipedia to be used in the English one. This article is a part of three Wiki Projects: Socialism, Linguistics, and Soviet Union. The article does not relate to my class.

Overall Impressions
I am having issues finding the status information on this article in Wikipedia. The article is incomplete, so I cannot critique it well on its strengths. The article can be improved by further working towards completion, moving towards a neutral tone by not adding opinions, and adding more sources. The article is poorly developed.