Talk:American Spaces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

criticism[edit]

To editor Perdustin: Could you explain which text you think is subjective? Also, this is an American government program and I've cited plenty of independent sources. How else would I globalize this? I'd be glad to make corrections if you could give me your specific complaints. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Chris troutman: The subjective label seemed the best (of several bad choices) for my first take on the whole article and was not aimed at a specific piece of text. It was based on my probably-mistaken impression that the article was written as an implied explanation of the current development of these "American Spaces". I got that impression from the way the article is structured. Where I would more clearly separate the description of the goals of the program, from the description of the program itself, and from its history, these are interleaved. Each section in the article seems to follow this general outline, goals, description, history (usually involving a hint of terrorism), as does the article itself. That structure is repetitive and unusual enough to make me wonder, and a bit confusing.
I recommend reorganization, trimming, and editing to avoid this. In particular separate out the organization of the program(s) as a chart or verbal description, with minimal statement of the goals of each section. A later section could recapitulate the description with a history of each part showing how it connects to the whole. Specific organizations within the overall umbrella (e.g. Ben Frankin library) should be mentioned only as appropriate and largely referred to their own article, where it exists. Keep everything brief and to the point, or you will lose your audience!
A word on staying brief and to the point: Most of the sections would be better broken into paragraphs each covering at most one subject. As it is,"Binational Centers" covers at least 8 distinct subjects in one long paragraph, and is not the only example. My brain reels.
Finally the sentence containing "...Post-9/11 and its propaganda thoroughly-discredited, the United States..." really needs some explanation. It just doesn't fit, and sets off alarms.
I hope that is helpful and not too pedantic. Good luck with it. Perdustin (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Perdustin: Thanks, that is useful criticism. The source material on the subject is very uneven and that's what drove the coverage. I will think on further reorganization to something that is more easily-accessible. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:American Spaces/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 19:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, this has been nominated for a rather long time, so I'll try and review it this weekend. I'll plan to give it a read through and make minor copyedits on the way, listing bigger points here, and deal with sourcing separately. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and professionals abroad" what does 'professionals' refer to here? There are a lot of different people who could be considered professionals, are you referring here to a specific field?
    • The source says "opinion makers, government officials, and movers and shakers." I'm referring to the intelligentsia and those in positions of power or influence. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the background section might be better titled 'overview'
  • Standardize between U.S. and US throughout
  • "to support US priorities " this feels odd to me in a Wikipedia context at least-- I think it's worth rephrasing somehow, maybe to clarify what the specific priorities that are being supported are, if that makes any sense. Happy to clarify if you aren't sure what I'm saying here
    • I get what you're asking but it's not practical to fix. US priorities change often. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2016 study at American Spaces" I think it's worth clarifying who conducted the study and what 'success' means here-- maybe you could replace "indicated the success" with a direct quote from the study?
  • there's a {{clarification needed}} in the section currently titled 'background' that should be resolved
  • "the mass audience as American culture better carries the message of the nation than its spokespeople do" I think it's odd to say this in the wiki-voice as presumably it's the American government feeling that this is the case-- could you quote or otherwise clarify this, somehow
    • Please read the source. The authors/editors of that book don't make a pointed claim but their meaning is (to me) clear. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and, not counting bi-national centers, most of those " so is this saying that the 31.7 million doesn't count bi-national centers, or the 31.7 million is mostly to bi-national centers but if you subtract visits there most are to American Centers
    • The latter: the 31.7 is all Spaces but taking away BNCs, most visits were the standalone Spaces as opposed to the America Houses, Corners, or IRCs. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find more up-to-date visitation stats than 2014?
  • I think As of 2017, 33 American Centers, 117 Binational Centers, 472 American Corners, and 88 IRCs comprised the American Spaces portfolio could be better expressed as As of 2017, the American Spaces program consisted of 33 American Centers, 117 Binational Centers, 472 American Corners, and 88 IRCs or something
    •  Done This sort of comment is not appropriate for a GA review. Reviewing an article is not creating a list of wordsmithing requests. I am offended this is the sort of treatment I get from you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "utilize a model of cost-sharing with local partners" is the only time 'cost-sharing' or 'local partners' come up-- could you expand on this at all?
    • No. The words mean what they mean. I don't have source material to speak to the range of how costs are shared with local partners. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize capitalization (what stood out to me was "Binational Centers" vs. "binational centers")
  • "There are more than a hundred of these centers" date?
  • You say that the centers are primarily located in Latin America, then go on to list a bunch of places in Germany-- doesn't quite line up to me
    • The paragraph starts by listing locations in Latin America. It is also true that there were BNCs in Germany. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perhaps 200 grams of dynamite" In the source, I see "600-800 grams"
  • "Although the program does not provide" what program?
  • "These centers are now" date 'now'
  • THis source says that BNCs were originally created by the United States but are now wholly run by independent local boards. yet you say Binational centers are privately founded and don't mention an independent local board running them. The source also says Few locals, however, seem to realize this and still consider BNCs to be part of our Embassies. — which suggests to me that most locals don't consider them independent —and you use it to support many locals are unaware these centers had any link to US diplomacy. It also says most BNCs are well-funded because of their tuition base, which doesn't support the blanket statement of These centers are now self-supporting based upon the tuition they collect.
    • The cited sources support all those points. Some of the BNCs were privately founded and run on the tuition they charge for English classes, although the State Department seems to have glommed-onto them asserting that they are public diplomacy projects. Do you have suggestions as to what needs changing? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stalled for years until the 1936 signing" could you add a date to when Milam first came up with the plan, so we get a better concept of how long it stalled for?
    •  Not done I looked for it but the cited source isn't clear on when the plan was devised. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A grant from the Rockefeller Foundation" date?
    • I don't have this book anymore so I can't establish a date here. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With World War II looming" Maybe "as tensions rose in the lead up to World War II", which is slightly more precise, I think?
  • "to fill the gap left by the flagging Alliance française." 1) what 'gap'? 2) A brief gloss of what the Allaince Franaise was would be helpful
    •  Not done The cited source doesn't go into depth about the gap and there's a link to the article about the Francophone program. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A contract between OIAA and ALA was signed in August 1941, purchasing a residence at Paseo de la Reforma 34" Who purchased the residence from who?
  • It isn't clear to me from the article that the ALA actually funded the library-- if it did? It was somewhat disorienting for me, as a reader, to jump between 'opening in 1942' then back to 'conception in 1936' then to return to 'opening in 1942', I think the section could be organized a bit more clearly
  • "With the official establishment of West Germany" could you add a date?
  • "During the social foment of the 1960s," It was very unclear to me, from the context, that this was in america and about the vietnam war-- I think that could be clarified
    • But it wasn't; the 1960s were a tumultuous decade and that's when these lefties attacked Amerikahauser in Germany. Is the link making the statement unclear? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now receive a majority of their funding" I think this needs to be dated again
  • "One author suggests that, over time" THis author's suggestion is fascinating, why don't you explain it a little further with like an additiona?
    • I don't think the cited source (a review of Orte für Amerika) says much more than what my text says. I don't have the book itself to expand what it says already. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the latter half of the 20th Century" maybe "In and after the latter half of the 20th Century " or something-- it's hard to be "since" a time period of 50 years
  • "premier tool of US public diplomacy officers." do you think you could switch 'premier' to something a little more encyclopedic. It strikes me as just the slightest bit puffy. For instance 'leading', a similar word is included on MOS:WTW
  • "were often the only American contact" when? (you say 'were', implying that they aren't now)
  • "The American Center in Tokyo, for example, says that it "hosts lectures, film screenings and other events on topics of importance to the U.S.-Japan relationship." Not verified in provided source-- perhaps you need to add an archive-url?
  • Xlibris is a self-publishing corporation, how does My Way meet WP:SPS?
    •  Done I removed it, but it was one of the few sources critical of this program. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The uncensored nature of these centers' book collections [. . .] led locals to call these the American libraries" Perhaps I'm dull, but I don't see the connection here-- could you be a bit more explicit, perhaps
  • "The foot traffic for English-language instruction and student counseling would also " what does 'would' refer to here?
    • The point is that those visiting the center for English-language classes or student counseling might also sit for a lecture or film screening since they would already be there. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an outlet of free thought in a sea of oppression," is not exactly neutral, suggest rephrasing or placing as a quote
  • The Irish Examiner link is broken
  • "affected by the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999." how did the act have an effect in other centers?
  • "as evidenced by Judith McHale's comments at the opening ceremony" If you are gonna mention them, we should know why. What did she say? WHy do we care?
    • She was the one who asserted the partnerships with Big Tech. I'm specifying because we don't have an independent source for the assertion. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Credited to Public Affairs Officer Todd Pierce" relevance?
    • That's what the cited source says. Shall we strip credit from Todd? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "focused on openness and customer service to undercut the restrictiveness of the Burmese government" again, I'm not seeing this as being phrased the most neutrally
    • That's what the source communicates. You don't think the Burmese government is objectively restrictive? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronologically, @America comes after the end of the cold war, suggest moving it as such in the article
    •  Not done @America is an American Center and as such, appears in that section. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are now positioned to compete with US Government efforts to influence the local populace." when is 'are'?

I've lightly copyedited, feel free to revert any parts that you disagree with. The article is pretty decent, I think it needs some work to get it up to GA, but most of my comments are not major. I understand that you take issue with standards creep, but I've just had a read-through and brought up anything that I noticed here-- If you don't care to implement it, just let me know. I think the bones of the article are good and that's the most important thing. Really a very interesting read through. I may have some more suggestions at a later date. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to move the extra comments to a separate section to clarify that they don't need to be addressed and are, well, extra
Wordsmithing & etc
  • "A Government Accountability Office in the" perhaps a GAO report?
  • "Located outside of the American embassy, American Centers were in facilities owned and operated by the US Government. These centers are" "were[...] are" clashes-- maybe try to standardize what tense you refer to the centers in
  • "any given local" maybe "many local people" or something similar-- "any given local" is a bit vague
  • citations should be in numerical order (lowest to highest)
  • "attacked and disrupted by left-wing student protests" technically, a protest can't attack anything, but protesters can-- Think you may want to switch this ( to "by left wing student protesterss"?
Progress

Chris troutman, you haven't responded to comments here for about a month. Do you know when you might be able to get to them? (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if it's my review you have a problem with, which seems to be the case, just say it and what I'll do is either close it or request a second opinion -- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Eddie891: My life doesn't allow me much time for Wikipedia, anymore, certainly not the in-depth effort this requires. I want to respond to all the comments here and help complete this GA; I'm hopeful to get this done by tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: I've made the necessary changes. Do you approve? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • sources I spotchecked lined up
  • there are some things I'd press you on in a peer review or FAC, but I think this is ga level. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Spaces&oldid=1204807375"