User talk:Laichena/America's Backyard (Production Version)

Hey,

The page looks great to me! I think you guys have a great start already. I have the feeling that you are ready for the final version. So Congratulation!

In my opinion, the topic is great. I have no idea what Laichena/America's Backyard means at first. However, your Wiki page helps me a lot in terms of understanding the topic since the page contains a lot of good information and explain to the reader about the topic really well. Furthermore, I am glad that you use Categories style to set your page up. This makes the structure of the page clear and easy for the reader to follow. These are some of my suggestion that you might want to consider: I kind of got lot in these sections: The Cold War and the Nixon Doctrine and Nature Reference so you might want to be a little bit more detail on that. I can see that you've already had some of the internal links but I would say that you still need some more. As the professor mentioned, the more internal links you have, the better your wiki project is.

Overall, This is my favourite Production Version and one of the best versions, I believe. Once again, Congratulation!

--(Khang Nguyen)--

I think its safe to say that I had no idea where the term America's Backyard came from and what it actually consisted of. Your page has a lot of good information and the internal sources that you provide give tons of additional information to back up what you have already provided. You explained the political meaning of America's Backyard fairly well, but I think that you could provide some more information to help people get a better understanding of it. The part of the page that I liked the most was the explanation of the actual backyards in America and how they could affect the prices of houses as well as the look the have on certain communities. The terrorist threat section that you provided needs more information and examples to back it up. To sum it up I think your page is good for a rough draft and the final production is probably going to be amazing. Good luck with the rest of your page. (Hadixon3 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Hey,

The page looks great from what I've seen. You have the ideas well mapped out and the transitions between sections are smooth. The first thing I did was to look at some of the sources you used and they all look to be pretty comprehensive and legitimate. From the short introduction one can already see that you have established the multiple meanings for the term. Most of the concerns about the page deal with the "note-like" form in some of the sections, but it is a "production version" so I'm not too concerned.

I have some suggestions, most of which have probably already been considered. One, talk about how the Monroe Doctrine may have helped Latin America and the Caribbean, but also created lots of tension between the U.S. and the aforementioned regions. Check out "America's backyard : the United States and Latin America from the Monroe Doctrine to the War on Terror" You could also talk about how America may or may not benefit from its backyard. Also maybe create a section about the current use of the term in regards to national security, is this what the "heartland" is about? Also, although it may be further from what you are talking about, include a little more about how it refers to the national parks (it looks like Jordan has started this already).

Other than the minor suggestions I made, it seems like the group has a solid idea about what is going on. Most of what i searched about the topic returned information about U.S. relations with the Latin American region. I guess it may be helpful to continue to put in more information about the different uses of the term. Furthermore, there are a lot of restaurants/bars named "America's Backyard", maybe distinguish the title incase some searchers get lot. Overall, I think this looks great, lots of information and good sources. I actually learned a little something from the brief reading.

Jherion (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

I totally had no idea about what "America's Backyard" was so before reading your wikipedia page I tried to search on google, but most of the information I could get was about a restaurant? However, your group did a nice job by giving a overview of brief explanations that now I know it's a term used to describe U.S. in a political view. Also, all those internal links helped me whenever a new term was seen.

By the way, there's one book I found about the relationship between America's backyard and Latin America if you would like to include as a reference or provide an additional reading.

America's Backyard: The United States and Latin America from the Monroe Doctrine to the War on Terror by: Grace Livingstone

Your page looks great! Yejung03 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

Great job so far! Everything looks like they are categorized appropriately and the sources were cited at the bottom. I noticed that you guys left some sections empty with one word underneath them, but I bet you guys are going to deal with that soon enough. I actually think that this page is pretty captivating. "America's Backyard" is something people probably already know about, but it's nice to have a page that is dedicated to describing it. Yeah, I would like to know more about the history of this term, but the section has been created already so I'm sure it coming soon. I like how each of you guys did a different section, so it's sort of like a real wiki page where random people would add their own perspectives on the subject, but still staying away from being bias.

Overall, there isn't much to say. You guys did a great job with the table of contexts and the page in general. I like the cartoon picture you included on this page. You guys are pretty set already, so just continue on doing what you are doing and you'll do fine. Good job, and looking forward to see how this page looks in it's final draft!

Myap89 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good start for the article. While I was reading it, it seemed like some of the same things were reiterated in following sections. Just make sure that it flows from section to section. In the section labeled "America's backyard as the Heartland," be sure to reference where you got the definition of Heartland. It looks like you guys really researched your topic and it shows in the level that your article is on. With a little bit of touch up, I'm sure you guys will be in line for the next Wiki featured article!

Joellane (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I can say that this is a very well-made article. Before I was reading it, it thought that it would be something related to typical American's house. However, I was suprised that it is related to political science. The flow of the article is fine. However, terms "Backyard" versus "Near Abroad" is somewhat strange. Basically, it explains about origin of terms "Backyard" compared to the term "Near Abroad." It would be better if that section only focus the origin of the term "Backyard," and you can make another section that have comparision about both terms. This article is well researched and contains a lof of information. However, if there are more current examples in this article since it is related to political science, it is much easier for readers to understand the concept of the current issues related to this topic. I think that this page is great. It is well-researched, and it gives fair view point. Good things about this article is that it gives professional credits from good sources. Overall, this is well made article and gives clear concept of the topic. Yhlee83 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is starting to shape up like an actual live article. The picture is great and compliments what is discussed in the article. The group did a really good job of finding a picture that is in the public domain. The fact that the cartoon was created in 1912 shows that this idea of “America’s backyard” has been around for a while and deserves its own Wikipedia page. Mark’s first two sections are a great model for how the rest of the page should look. The paragraphs already contain terms that are linked to other Wikipedia articles. The credibility of this topic is affirmed by linking it with “near abroad,” a topic that has already received a Wikipedia page. I can’t really suggest any other sections for this site because I’ve never studied the term. The group should keep in mind that there are many people who haven’t studied this term and Wikipedia will be where many go first for an overview of information. The group has to be sure it covers the term in all contexts. Often a person will come across the term in a reading and go to Wikipedia to look it up. Maybe a section could contain a list of the literature the term has been used in. Sara has the right idea for how the Latin America section should read. The links just need to be embedded in the text. Jordon’s section contains really good details, but where did all of this information come from? I really like the idea of the “see also” section and I can see a lot of students moving onto using these links because this section is clearly and concisely laid out. Lmontini (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of the comments from your peers above. The one thing I'd re-emphasize is the list of criteria for 'featured articles' in Wikipedia; these are the criteria I'll be using to evaluate the final version of your entry. Is the entry well-written, compelling, and easy to read? Are there aspects of the topics that haven't been explored in the entry or linked to other entries in Wikipedia? Are you drawing from a variety of types of sources (e.g., personal/organizational/educational webpages, newspapers, journals/magazines, books, etc.) throughout your entry? Have you formatted your entry to look similar to existing Wikipedia entries on similar topics? If you're incorporating images, do you have the appropriate permissions to post those files? These are the kinds of questions I'll be asking of your final version of this entry. Pmedward (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)