Talk:Communist Party of the Soviet Union/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 05:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominator: B. M. L. Peters (talk · contribs) at 05:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This level-5 vital article is an important one. It has potential to not only be GA, but also FA. But, at present (this version), it doesn't meet either criteria. I rarely quick-fail articles, irrespective of how bad the prose or structure is. But, there are lots of paragraphs which are completely un-cited. The lack of citations is a major issue, and it compels me to quick-fail this nomination. This is how the article stands against the GA criteria:

GA criteria

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:
· · ·

Reasons for quick-fail

Following are the GA criteria which I assessed above as "fail". The reason is also mentionned:

• 1b : it complies with the manual of style (MOS) guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. ·

Lots of MOS issues like:

6-paragraphed lead section, when the lead should not be longer than 4 paragraphs

MOS:DUPLINK, various terms are linked 2 or more times in the prose

Lengthy paragraphs (MOS:PARA)

Abbreviation, like RSFSR are not defined on its first instance. (MOS:1STOCC)

• 2c : it contains no original research ·

The entire "Name" sub-section, first two paragraphs of "Early years (1898–1924)" sub-section, entire "Stalin era (1924–53)" sub-section, last paragraph of "Gorbachev and the party's demise (1985–91)" sub-section, first paragraph of "Governing style" section, list in "Organization" section, entire "General Secretary" sub-section, few lines in "Lower-level organization" sub-section, almost entire "Membership" sub-section, and entire "Electoral history" section is completely incited. There are various "citation-needed" tags. Also, there are few instances where the source does not support the entire cited material. Therefore, a lot of original research in this article.

• 3b : it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ·

At around 90,000 characters, this article is WP:TOOBIG. I understand that for a broad topic like this, the length is sometimes justified, but in this case, the article is not focused.

• It also has issues with the "well-written" part, including few very long sentences like:

Gorbachev and his allies envisioned the introduction of an economy similar to Lenin's earlier New Economic Policy through a program of "perestroika", or restructuring, but their reforms, along with the institution of free multi-candidate elections led to a decline in the party's power, and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the banning of the party by later last RSFSR President Boris Yeltsin and subsequent first President of an evolving democratic and free-market economy of the successor Russian Federation.

After many unsuccessful attempts to create an anti-fascist alliance among the western countries, including trying to rally international support for the Spanish Republic in its struggle against a fascist military coup supported by Germany and Italy, in 1939 the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Germany which would be broken in June 1941 when the German military invading the Soviet Union in the largest land invasion in history, beginning the Great Patriotic War.; etc.

That much is enough for me to quick-fail this nomination. I think the issues are major, and it will take long to fix them. I encourage you to re-nominate this, but only after fixing the issues. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)