User:Megachad69/sandbox

I have an IQ of 77. Fight me IRL.

Article Evaluation
The article in question is Order of the Red Banner of Labor.

The standards listed for evaluating an article on the handout are: a quality lead section, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliable sources. In other words, the article must start well, be organized, well-rounded, unbiased, and based on good outside sources.

The lead section gives a solid overview of the article, telling what the medal is, why and to whom it is awarded, and giving a brief summary of the history. There are no linguistic mistakes, and while it is short enough that each sentence has to mostly stand on its own, there are no parts that feel choppy or disjointed. The only really "off" part is that the list of fields the medal can be awarded for work in, which goes on for a few too many examples to simply end with an &c.

The article is organized into three main sections: the official description of how it should be awarded, a physical description of the two forms the medal took, and a partial list of the recipients of the award. Each section contains material mostly relevant to the section heading, but the article could use a "history" section to consolidate various passages, and expand upon where the medal came from.

Each section seems to cover about the same amount of material, with none seeming to be given vastly greater coverage, although the lists in the first and last sections make a direct comparison. Based on gut feeling alone, the section physically describing the medal seems a bit over-detailed, but this is a subjective and aesthetic judgment.

The content is blandly neutral. The award existed, and was awarded for certain reasons, and looked a certain way, and was awarded to a number of people and institutions. No value judgements are made.

The sources of the article are slightly suspect. Most of them are different decrees of the Supreme Soviet, which might be counted as original research. One link is to a book by Winston Churchill, and two are to other Wikipedia articles, one of which is in the Russian version. Both of them look like lists of recipients (which is where the last section would logically belong) and the sources for them ought to either be migrated to the page of the Order itself, or deleted entirely.

Overall, this article is decent, and could use some cleanup. More sources, especially secondary sources, would add to the article's gravity, and a section the history and nature of the order would not be out of place. While the history page reveals an active editing process, the talk page does not reveal much in the way of discussion over the article.

The Kolkhoz System
Main article: Kolkhoz

With the rise of the Soviet Union, the old Russian farming system was transformed into something more in line with the Soviet ideals. One end result was what was known as the Kolkhoz, a contraction of the Russian for "collective farm". In the late 1920s, Stalin made a push to mandate collectivization, and in 1930, the Central Committee called for the collectivization of "the huge majority" of peasant farms".  Although nominally a cooperative, the workers were given neither the true privileges of owners, nor the freedom to leave of laborers.

Kolkhozes were typically divided up into "brigades" of 15-30 households. Over time, these came to be more permanent, and, in the 1950's, they were re-organized into "complex brigades". Brigades were often themselves divided into "links" of a few people.

As opposed to Sovkhozes, or state-run farms, who employed salaried workers, the Kolkhoz workers were supposed to be paid by the day worked, although the actual rate of pay varied greatly in practice--cash was occasionally used, but more often payment was given in grain, and this only meagerly.