This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from American Spaces appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that in a survey, a Pakistani stated that a visit to one of the American Spaces under increased security conditions was "like going to jail or getting into Fort Knox"?
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.
@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
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. Eddie891TalkWork19:11, 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'
"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
"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?
"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
"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
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?
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?
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
"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
"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?
"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
"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?
"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
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, Eddie891TalkWork22:22, 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
"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
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"?
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 -- Eddie891TalkWork21:37, 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
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)
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)
