Talk:American Spaces

criticism
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)