User:Strr34/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
History of the Communist Party USA

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is literally the history of a communist party in a major country. Specifically I picked the United States communist party as the US was one of the most vehemently anti-communist countries.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead Section
 * The introductory sentence doesn't really give a great overview, sure the information is valuable but this could be rewritten better.
 * The rest of the lead section is fairly good touching on a couple of major events, it could probably use a sentence about when and where the party was formed but otherwise it's good.
 * It leaves out the obvious (It's a political party, founding members/dates, big/small) and jumps into details too quickly
 * Content
 * Plenty of good information about the connections of the party as well it's major actions and some of it's members
 * It could use more background on the parties platform, day to day actions, and to a lesser extent it's members
 * Seems to be some opinions leaking through the information
 * There is a lot of details and very little background, tons of organizational and personal names being thrown around without a lot of background of who they are.
 * Tone and Balance
 * Again some opinions leaked through especially near the end around the section of the fall of the USSR.
 * Overall it's fairly neutral there a couple spots needed to be cleaned up but for the most part it looks good
 * Sources
 * Many, many points throughout the article where the author needs to cite more sources, this is a serious issue especially combined with the fact that there are normative opinions in this articles
 * As far as the sources themselves they appear to be a bit dated and many by a handful of authors but they are still varied enough and seem to be academically sound sources.
 * Organization
 * Since this is about specifically the CPUSA it's my opinion that it should be organized via their ebb and flows not in a purely chronological order (i.e. the underground period or growth period or post ussr period)
 * Again there are background and fact laying issues and the author gets caught up more than once in odd wording spliced with newly introduced characters that really just serves to confuse.
 * Word quality wise the introduction is among, if not, the worst section in this article.
 * Images and Media
 * Not terrible but they could use more CPUSA symbolism (pamphlets, symbols, etc)
 * Talk Page
 * There's a couple small edits and one user lamenting how opinionated the article is, that's it.
 * Overall Impressions
 * While this article ostensibly has tons of information, it is un-cited, poorly organized, and at various points opinionated. There is a reason this is a C-class article and it's very clear
 * This article has some really good starting points (given that the author just forgot to cite and wasn't making things up) but it needs a lot of tuning