Jump to content

Talk:American Spaces/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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
  • "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
  • "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
  • 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
  • "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?
  • 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
  • "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?
  • "A grant from the Rockefeller Foundation" date?
  • "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
  • "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
  • "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?
  • "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?
  • "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?
  • "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?
  • "Credited to Public Affairs Officer Todd Pierce" relevance?
  • "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
  • Chronologically, @America comes after the end of the cold war, suggest moving it as such in the article
  • "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
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Spaces/GA1&oldid=1002097029"