User:LaurenLainez/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:California Republican Party

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was classified as a C class article so it has some errors and need for improvement. The talk page of this article mentions some bias, inaccuracies and some issues with vandalism towards a politician in California. These mistakes can be easy to make if your not careful and I want to be able to see what it looks like as well as how to fix it so I know for when I am making my own edits.

Evaluate the article
The lead section gives a good basic description about the Republican Party in California and where they stand. It is overall pretty good but does not give a description about what the article will be about or summarize the article. The content is not necessarily what I would expect from the introduction. It is mostly giving names and election results and gives a brief history about the Republican Party but the majority of it is just listing off names of different republican figures in California over time. There is also a lot of repetition of phrases which makes the tone/quality a bit confusing. It really only addresses victories for Republican Party and who the officials are but I think there's a lot more that could be added about the republican party. There is good use of graphs, charts and some pictures at the end but it could be beneficial to add more at the beginning. There are lots of citations in the article that reference some good sources, although some are also very bias and don't appear super reputable. The talk page mentions how there are different levels and kinds of republicans and conservatism's that are not addressed which makes it appear that all republicans are super conservative. I would agree that this is something that could be addressed especially since the party has changed over time. Some of the links and materials were also modified partially for plagiarism. It also discusses vandalism towards a politician that was removed and that the word "nazism" was used to refer to the party but was also removed. It seems the author has strong opinions overall that come through so I think it would help the article to give more context about the scale of the Republican Party.