Talk:America's Backyard

Untitled
Hey, this is an extensive article with a ton of information. Great job organizing it, breaking it up effectively, and keeping it entertaining. There isn't much that can be done to improve the page, it's already pretty good. The content follows a logical order, and the references are good sources. There are already many links within Wikipedia, but with this much content, there could always be a few more to help integrate your page into the rest of Wikipedia (for example, different countries, and concepts). Other than adding a few links, and minor grammar problems the page is awesome. If something could be added to the page, such as a map, or some photo similar to the newspaper cartoon, then it would help balance the huge amount of information the user would have to read, just to help keep interest in the subject. Overall, great page. Jroldham (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the best of our class's pages yet. My first and overall impression was that it has the overall feel of a Wikipedia page; organization, type of content, and the several links throughout the article. The See Also section is also a great idea that, in retrospect, I should have used on my own page. The same for the Categories in which you included your article. The criticisms I have are only minor issues. For example, the translation "(Russian: ближнее зарубежье, blizhneye zarubezhye)" is something that should go in the intro paragraph, where the term was first introduced, and not on its third mention. Under "Monroe Doctrine," you have a paragraph with two sentences which sticks out a bit to me; perhaps it should be expanded or incorporated into another paragraph. Grace Livingstone’s book should be italicized, and perhaps linked. Finally, I see a bit of an oddity with the 15th reference... too many apostrophes or quotes. Otherwise, I'm afraid the other articles will pale in comparison to yours. Great job! Igomes (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

Going over the page, I felt this page was very neat and well done. It contained a lot of reliable information and it was very well organized. I really liked that it was appropriate links so that users could easily link to other related information. Also, information on the page was very well summarized so that not actually researching about "America's Backyard", I could find out what it is very easily. The page did not contain any non-important information. However, I would suggest there should be some more pictures of maps that can help users to understand the page. And maybe adding a historical record, or historical line of it would help users too. Other than that the page just need some change in grammatical errors and non italicized words that should be italicized.

Most of the page was very good and neat. I think it will soon become a completed wikipedia article. Good job! Gyungho (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought this page was well written and organized. Also I found the content to be easy to understand and interesting which are very important. Not only do they define what "America's Backyard" means they provide examples which is great. I also really like the fact that the page had an "See Also" section which I thought was a great addition. The page was broken into relevant sections and that makes it easier to comprehend. The picture was relevant but i also thought that a few more pictures could be added to make the page more interesting looking. overall great work. Hernandez468(User talk:hernandez468|talk]])

Pretty much going to echo what is above but, great page. I think the most impressive part is how well it flows, along with how succinct your style of writing is; there's really no wasted words. Outside of the content the layout is very sharp (references, 'see also' section, etc.) and fits the wikipedia "style" seamlessly. Wish I had something constrctive to add but, for what this is, the page is excellent. Woodtc (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article, as those before me have pointed out. The content is interesting, well thought out, and properly supported by facts and links to other pages. You document all facets of the topic at hand, including history, semantics, and politics. The references list is complete and accurate with the appropriate format and citations. I like how you included the "see also" list of topics on the page as well. The only thing I can think of that might enhance what the earlier reviewers have already noted is perhaps a timeline of some sort, to put the historical facts in perspective for more visually-oriented readers.

Other than that, I noticed a few spelling and grammatical errors, nothing real serious at all. In terms of formatting and content, this is certainly a Wikipedia article which can serve as an example for other editors creating something similar. Good job! Hperic (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)



This article is not neutral
This article has not a neutral POV. Outside USA, "America's Backyard" concept is considered a very pejorative and offensive way to refer to the rest of the continent, fueling reactionist and nationalistic anti-USA doctrines. Cuba is a very early example of a reactionism against this. Venezuela is another one. Other coutries that are looking for greater economic, political and social independence are actively reducing the USA influence and interference.

The article says that the USA dealt only with the elites in Latin American coutries and that resulted in uneven development. Althought this is true, it's only a half-truth. In fact, the USA did that on purpose. Their actively installed and supported repressive and corrupt regimes and elites to hinder and obstruct the development of Latin America ensuring their political and economical hegemony (Cuba just sort of backfired turning to the Soviet Union instead).

Very few of the article says anything about the reactionism to this concept and how it is viewed outside of the US, specially in Latin America. 179.237.11.80 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)