I find that articles about political theories and movements are usually fairly good. Articles about history, especially the history of regions where nationalist movements are active, are another matter entirely. Those are political battlegrounds. They tend to have 10 or more archives of the talk page, indicating that the article is widely disputed or even "owned".
Any article about the Middle East, for example, is heavily gatekept; I won't even try to fix punctuation on such articles, I treat them only as a source of links to more-reliable material.
Political theories, yeah I can see them having some rigor.
For movements? Very much depends on what media sources think of them, because they are the "reliable sources". This gets even more pronounced when they have a conflict of interest, for example "This subset of media sources is engaging in behaviour that indicates a conflict of interest" easily gets you labelled as everything bad in the world by those very same outlets. Which then get cited as reliable sources, and through those citations other outlets start mirroring that and so on.
Until the reliable sources are mostly in agreement and you can't do shit about it.
I find that articles about political theories and movements are usually fairly good. Articles about history, especially the history of regions where nationalist movements are active, are another matter entirely. Those are political battlegrounds. They tend to have 10 or more archives of the talk page, indicating that the article is widely disputed or even "owned".
Any article about the Middle East, for example, is heavily gatekept; I won't even try to fix punctuation on such articles, I treat them only as a source of links to more-reliable material.