RSuee

Much of the content, both new and old, is quoted directly. I can appreciate trying to stay close to the point of the literature, but it should be revised and paraphrased according to the guidelines from our past assignments. In the section about the Soviet Union, the content should be split up into separate paragraphs because it is good content that makes sense but the sudden switch from Lenin to Stalin with some integration of them as a unit was a bit confusing. Personally, I think a good organization for that section would be to chronologically discuss Lenin in one paragraph and then Stalin in the next and finish with a paragraph about ways the two were similar. I also think condensing the major points to cut straight to the chase would be helpful because the finer details are distracting, but if you were to keep specifics in, you may want to elaborate on them because without any context or explanation of how they are relevant they are confusing and distracting from the point. It also felt like there was no explanation of another point of view, and I’m not sure if that is because there is only one real view on this topic or because the research used only discusses one viewpoint. The image added seemed great and relevant, but it would be helpful to expand on the caption and explicitly state how it relates to the content. There should also be a revision specifically for grammatical errors like using “cult’s” where “cults” should be used. The new sources seem fine, but the content from the original article included here does not seem to have any citations. I assume that this is because the citations do not carry over when the article is copied and pasted into the sandbox, but I think you should just be careful about that when you post it. Overall, this is a great start with good points, but semantic parts of it like grammar and organization of the paragraphs are taking away from the content itself.Heather Lipsky (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, RSuee, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If the characteristics section is the lead I think the current information from that section is enough. If there is more content added about cult of personality then there should be more information added to this sections as well. The writer Cleary states the definition of cult of personality in this section which I would think is the most vital piece of information since this wiki page is about that topic. The wiki page has a very clear structure, it is separated by headlines and sub headlines that indicate what each section will be about. The information presented is also neutral with no bias towards any side. In the Soviet Union section there was no bias towards Stalin. The only content that was available was about how Stalin used Lenin's cult of personality to further progress the rise of the communist party. Overall what has been added to this wiki page seems to fit the criteria and over time as more information is found there will be more content added that will elongate the wiki page and the characteristics section to introduce more sub topics based off of cult of personality.

Enicole26 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback Review

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for the feedback, especially the links. I appreciate it greatly and all of the feedback you provided was immensely useful. I do want to clarify that my capitalization of "Black" is purposeful since I'm referencing a group of people as a noun, specifically a group of people whose identity has been historically stipped away from them--who now use the term "Black" to refer to their cultural, artistic, and commodity identities. Here an excellent article on the matter, if you're interested: [1] Owenpayne2000 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback

I thought your article about personality cult was interesting. Your article flowed well and it was well informative. When you wrote about the Soviet Union implementing personality cults, and it didn't feel like you were biased towards the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.70.96 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)