Talk:Ernest C. Brace

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ernest C. Brace/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PocklingtonDan (talk · contribs) 16:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are no spelling or grammar errors that I spotted. I have not spotted any plagiarised text or text usage that might not respect copyright laws. There are some problems with the prose, however. For example the introductory sentence in the lead reads "Ernest C. Brace (born August 15, 1931) was the longest-held civilian prisoner of war (POW) in Vietnam". Although it may be obvious to the author that "Vietnam" here relates to "The Vietnam way of 1955 to 1975", I think in the context of a lead for this article, this clarification is worth making. I also object to the use of military slang in an encyclopaedia article, so I don't think that "mustang" should be used in the following sentence "A decorated Marine Corps fighter pilot and mustang". There are some problems with the layout too.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The section "Autobiographies" should not be a top level header, but a subheading under "Bibliography". I think "Brace hit his low point and attempted to hang himself" is editorializing or unencyclopaedic, I think the statement that he attempted to hang himself is fact that should be included, but "hit his low point" is filler words that do not add anything: a report on his mental state would be an insight, an uncited reference to his perceived mental state is not. "Hit a low point" is a cliche, advised against by the Manual of Style. "Military Career" covers both his military career and his faked death and discharge: I'd say that the latter is notable enough that it needs its own section, or at least sub-section. It also helps people scanning the page to make sense of the chronology I think if you add approximate date brackets for each, ie "Military Service (1951-1961)".
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Your external links are not up to scratch. One reads "Bio at pownetwork.org" and the other "Prisoner of war". "Bio" is slang/abbreviation, and "Prisoner of War" is just very vague and doesn't indicate the site linked to in any way. Several references to online works do not include retrieval dates, incuding eg "Quantico to Open Brace Court-Martial". Free-Lance Star. 5 July 1961."
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All the key facts appear to be well cited, and there is a good breadth of sources. PASS.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see no original research or attempts at synthesis
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is nothing on Brace's early life whatsoever, I'm not sure that can be classed as sufficiently broad for an encyclopaedic article on the man. All other sections are also spread awfully thin (there is also nothing 1953-1961, or 1988-2013 that I can see), I think a bit more coverage is needed here. I also think there is a major lack of information on his activity in Laos that led to his capture. This is critical, because it is what led to his main cause of notability (longest civilian POW). There is very little information on what exactly he was doing on a dirt airstrip in Laos in the middle of a war. This explanation is critical for this article. FAIL on grounds of breadth.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article cannot be accused of going into too much detail. It remains very tightly focused on-topic and is a PASS on this section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't believe that this article can be claimed to be neutral but I have to pass it. Whilst the language used is unencyclopaedic, there is a glaring fact here that needs addressing: he flew one or more members of the Thai military into a dirt strip in Laos in 1965, during the Laotian Civil War at the peak of US and Thai escalation in the region during a war, and when the US was kicking off operation Yankee Team and he flew for USAID who the main article on mention that there are claims that "in the 1960s and early 1970s USAID has maintained a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under USAID cover" and he is counted as a civilian POW? Seems at the least slightly incredible. However the official (US) sources cited do seem to state civilian, so civilian we class him, as ridiculous as it seems. PASS.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has predominantly a single author in its current expanded form. His edits seem positive, over a good length of time, and to not be part of any ongoing edit war. This section is a PASS.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images appear to be tagged correctly, and with valid rationales for use. This is a PASS.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The two main images - the portrait photograph and the medals bar - both lack captions. These both need adding for a pass, please
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a FAIL for GA at this time, primarily because of large gaps in coverage of the chronology, and also what must be the main focus of this article - his capture as a civilian on a foreign airstrip, which is the main cause of his notoriety. Full explanation given in sections above for my decisions here.

Awards Section

I removed the awards section because, although I like seeing a ribbon rack, MOS:ICONS discourages it and Brace has since been given two awards which he never wore on his uniform. Ultimately it didn't seem to be worth keeping. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernest C. Brace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221172606/http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=28065 to http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=28065

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)