The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 01:37, 23 February 2011 [1].

Empire of Brazil[edit]

Empire of Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lecen (talk), • Astynax talk, Hchc2009 (talk) and Arthur Holland (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Astynax talk, Hchc2009 (talk), Arthur Holland and me are nominating this for featured article because we all believe that it's capable of bringing an entire period of Brazilian history back to life through a well researched and very well written article. It looked like this [2] before we began working on it, so anyone can have an idea of all we've done since then. Kind regards, Lecen (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images all images are verifiably in the public domain, properly licensed and sourced, but I find File:Brasileiros_do_seculo_XIX.png hugely distasteful Fasach Nua (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the census covers a multitude of demographic issues including age, gender, literacy and I'm sure umpteen other things, for me to use this image is suggestive the most important thing obtained in the census is the colour of one's skin, also in using these 18 people to illustrate this demeans the subject and makes it appear that from wikipedia's point of view that their only significant achievement is their race. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image does not demean the subjects, it exemplifies the fact that there were a wide varity of peoples under the rule of the Brazilian Empire. The very definition of an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples under the rule of a monarch or oligarchy. The image reflects that definition nicelyXavierGreen (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a co-nominator of this article, it hadn't occurred to me that this might be an issue. I'm not sure if that was naive/insensitive of me or not, but I would ask what you think of, for example, the African-American page, which has a similar photo-montage used to provide examples of African-Americans. I know it's not quite the same thing, but I think that saying that "this demeans the subject and makes it appear that from wikipedia's point of view that their only significant achievement is their race" is excessive.
However, if there is a consensus that this image is inappropriate, could we not juggle the photos in the montage (it's out of copyright due to age and it'll take me ten minutes on photoshop) so that they're in no particular order? Seems a shame to lose some great faces, as they give a very human feel to who the Brazilians of the time were. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the caption states for this image states "two female mulattoes", would it be appropriate to adjust the African American image caption and replace where it says "Barack Obama" with "Half caste male"? I think not! I couldn't imagine a modern state article with a montage of races in the demographic section Fasach Nua (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Empire of Brazil he would be, you cannot make anacronistic comparisons. The Empire of Brazil was a very different place than the United States or (modern Brazil) is today.XavierGreen (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Xavier, but since 1872 every national census has divided the Brazilian population into white, black, brown (pardo) and Indian. Today, 2011, this is still how it works. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why i said what i did, the Brazilian empire recognized the different races under its jurisdiction. pardo which means half caste in english was one of those recognized.XavierGreen (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pretty much clear that in 19th century Brazil there were four ethnic categories: whites, brown, blacks and Indians. The brown were divided into mulattoes, caboclos and cafuzos. Since this is the English-written Wikipedia and not every one knows what is a "caboclo" or a "cafuzo", the pictures have a point. And I sincerely don't understand why you bothered with pictures of Brazilian mulattoes. Pictures of mixed-race people is offensive but of whites isn't? I can't understant this. --Lecen (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick NPOV concern with the image: I find the absence of working class Brazillians presenting as European in the photomontage disturbing, and, the exclusive focus on rural proletarians fairly disturbing. Compare images 1-7 which present petits bourgeois and bourgeois sensibilities with images 9-12, 17-18. There's also a bias towards rural manual trades (though I will accept the argument that images 3 and 7 may represent well off white collar workers or highly strategically successful skilled workers). If you're representing a demographic spread, you need to consider class. Gender seems balanced. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but nowhere in the books I got those pictures from there was anything telling which job they had. Unless you have information saying that they were "rural proletarians", "rural manual trades" and "white collar workers" I can not add something like that. In fact, the objective of the picture is to represent the ethnic groups found in the country, not occupations. I hope people won't appear in here saying that I should add more left handed people, or more pictures of people with beard, or someone with blue eyes, or someone with a tie, etc... it will be impossible to please all tastes. --Lecen (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion on talk at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1#Image POV concern; the rest of the article needs to be reviewed also, and I can see that this discussion about one image only is going to quickly fill up this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab (Realism); no dead external links. --PresN 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed dab. Arthur Holland (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sample only, why does this sentence require seven sources?

Please review for non-breaking spaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Ethnicity is a sensitive topic, and these sources support the current consenus view. The string of notations is awkward, and I had intended to go through and bunch the citations for statements which are using more than 1–2 sources. I have done so now. I've also gone through the article and inserted missing non-breaking spaces. • Astynax talk 07:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply (on a 1a issue ("19th century" to be hyphenated) mentioned by User:SandyGeorgia in an edit summary:
Shouldn't "19th century" only be hyphenated when it is a compound adjective (e.g. "There was political upheaval in 19th-century Brazil") but not when "19th" is a simple adjective and "century" is the modified noun (e.g. "in the 19th century, there was political upheaval in Brazil")? Arthur Holland (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading the article now, I will give my opinion when I finish it. It does look good overall, the introduction is good, well-written. Maybe the following could be added to the Consolidation subsection:

1. The name of the law of 1850, in this case Eusébio de Queirós law, named after its main promoter.
2. Can we add a picture of Caxias? He is very important for the history of the Empire, in fact nobody is more representative of the Empire. He served both Dom Pedro I and II. He also served in a variety of positions and was the highest ranking noble. Just a suggestion.

Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulista, thanks for reviewing the article. Now to the points raised by you:
1. As you know, articles as this one, that has information about every little bit of thing in a country has to be no more than a summary. I found no reason to mention the law, nor the law that freed slaves above 65 years that was passed in 1885. In fact, the most important law of all, the Constitution itself, is not mentioned in the history section. The failed Constituent Assembly, as well as the Constitution passing isn't mentioned. The Confederation of the Equator isn't. I had to go straight to the point with the text, or otherwise, the article would become too large. But all that will be mentioned in the article History of the Empire of Brazil once I begin working at it.
2. The most popular military officer in the history of the Empire, Manuel Luís Osório, the Marquis of Erval, is briefly mentioned in the Armed Forces' section. Caxias, on the other hand, is mentioned is that section as well as in nobility section. There were many, many important historical characters that do not appear at all in here: Empress Leopoldina (main character in the Independence), Joaquim Nabuco (main leader of the Abolitionist movement), Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcelos (main founder of the Conservative Party and the one who shaped the Empire as we all known), Priest Feijó (regent), Marquis of Olinda (Regent), Aureliano Coutinho (leader of the Courtier Faction), Count of Eu (husband of Princess Isabel), etc, etc, etc... However, I will improve in the near future Caxias article so that it will be possible to name it for Featured category and redeem the lack of importance given tho him in this article.
Hope you can understand. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lecen,
I agree the article can not be too long, however to add only two words would improve the understanding of the crisis with the British Empire, especially since we are already talking about it in the article. This is just a suggestion, I will not make a big deal out of this. I like your solution for Caxias, to fix the Caxias article and then come back here would be the best. Good idea. I will try to get my review done in the next two days. Best regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with a part of this article. I am concerned with this: The lack of an heir who could feasibly provide a new direction for the nation also threatened the long-term prospects for the Brazilian monarchy. The Emperor's heir was his eldest daughter, Dona Isabel, who had no interest in, nor expectation of, becoming the monarch.[96] Can I see the quote from the source for this information? I believe that this is central to the article and it has to be 100 % correct. I do not have this book here so I need it if possible. It appears to me a bit unusual for what I know regarding the history of the period. I may be wrong but I have to be sure in order to support this article. I will also look for different sources, even if Barman said this we have to see if we have different views about this. If you know something please let me know. Best Regards Paulista01 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "It would be unjust to claim that the emperor consciously set out to sabotage D. Isabel's prospects for succeeding him as monarch. He had no need to do so, because in most respects D. Isabel did not perceive herself as the future monarch of Brazil. [...] She had no desire to break out from the domestic sphere to which women were assigned. She was content with the life of an aristocratic lady, devoting herself to family, religion, charitable works, theater, opera, painting and music. Her personal correspondence shows neither a liking for nor an understanding of public affairs. [...] The reality was that she would not, perhaps could not, openly defy or quarrel with her adored Papaizinho, "Daddykins." She was unable to envisage herself as his replacement or his rival. [...] D. Isabel treated her months as regent, from May 1871 to March 1872, as a favor done to her father, a burden she wanted to hand back to him as soon as possible." Barman: Citizen Emperor, pp. 262–263. Barman goes on to say that D. Isabel did not even enjoy her months acting as regent, quoting her wish to be free of it expressed in a letter. • Astynax talk 08:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Paulista, Isabel's lack of interest in being a monarch and prefering to live as an ordinary aristocrat (not commoner, is good let it clear) is better unfolded in Barman, Roderick J. Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc. 2002 ISBN 0-8420-2845-5 It has a Portuguese-writen edition too: Barman, Roderick J. Princesa Isabel: gênero e poder no século XIX. São Paulo: UNESP, 2005. ISBN 8571395985
Other historians have also written about it.
E a Princesa Isabel? Esta, bem que era respeitada por suas excelentes virtudes pessoais. Mas politicamente apenas toleravam-na. [...]
A explicação de tal fato estava em que no Brasil, e numa sociedade como era então a nossa, onde o papel da mulher se limitava exclusivamente aos deveres de mãe de família, sem nenuma ação lá fora, no mundo político ou oficial, dificilmente se podia conceber a ingerência dela no Governo da Nação.
É um fato a relevar que a mulher brasileira, apesar de seus dotes de inteligência, de sua vivacidade, de seu bom senso, até certo ponto, mesmo, em média, mais elevado do que o do homem, nunca desempenhou, ou nunca procurou desempenhar, ao que se sabe, papel de relevo no cenário político do país.
Com exceção da Marques de Santos, cuja ação pública, a bem dizer, não foi além de arranjadora de empregos para a família, nenhuma outra personalidade feminina do Paço ou fora do Paço teve jamis influência nos atos públicos dos dois Soberanos que nos governavam. Nem a primeira Imperatriz, Dona Leopoldina - apesar de se lhe terem querido emprestar um papel que não desempenhou na preparação da Independência - nem a que se lhe seguiu no trono, Dona Amélia; nem no segundo Reinado, Dona Teresa Cristina, nem a filha Dona Isabel (salvo, naturalmente, nos seus governos-regências), nenhuma dessas senhoras teve jamais, que se saiba, a menor participação na política ou na administração do país. O mesmo pode dizer-se de outras que estiveram ligadas, por laços de intimidade, à vida ou pessoas do Paço. Ou ainda das mulheres de nossos homens de Estado; e com maior razão daquelas que, estranhas embora a seus lares, tiveram sobre eles qualquer ascendência snetimental.
Assim que a mulher influindo mais ou menos abertamente na vida pública do estadista, a figura clássica da Egéria, como a tiveram em França Thiers e Guizot, para não citar também alguns Chefes de Estado, foi uma criatura que jamais existiu no Império. [...]
Por isto se explica, não diremos a má vontade, mas a incompreensão com que os nossos homens de Estado viam a possibilidade de o Brasil ser governado por uma Soberana. Era-lhes de fato difícil imaginar que pudessem vir a ser obrigados a submeter-se à política de uma mulher, à sua intromissão na balança dos partidos, na formação das Câmaras e dos Gabinetes ou na economia das eleições. Não era a pessoa da Princesa Isabel, dona de tantos dotes, que eles viam com uma mal disfarçada apreensão, mas sim a mulher-Chefe de Estado, a mulher-Poder Executivo e Poder Moderador, a mulher-estadista - numa palavra, a Imperatriz reinante.
Esse sentimento de respulsa pela mulher dirigindo os negócios públicos estava de tal modo enraizado na mentalidade dos estadistas e do público em geral que vinha a tona mais ou menos periodicamente, toda a vez que, na ausência do Imperador, a Regência do Império passava às mãos da Princesa Isabel. Tudo era então pretexto para intrgalhadas e confusões. Ora acusavam-na de Clericalismo, chegando-se a inventar o boato de que levara o exagero a ponto de varrer o chão de uma igreja em Petrópolis; ora de fraqueza, deixandose dominar pela vontade pirracenta do marido - "o Francês"; ora de querer impor arbitrariamente a vontade, mesmo contra a opinião política das Câmaras e dos Gabinetes.
Source: Lyra, Heitor (1977c). História de Dom Pedro II (1825–1891): Declínio (1880–1891). 3. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia. pp.32-33
Since Paulista is Brazilian, he will understand the text. in case anyone else might want to read it, tell me, and I'll translate it to English. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Astynax and Lecen, Thank you for your fast response. Isabel indeed had no interest in being chief of state for most of her life, however, even Barman mentioned that after 1888 and the Cotejipe crisis she was starting to take a more proactive approach to her future as chief of state:
The conduct of Pedro Augusto was no more than a nuisance. Indeed his misdeeds paled into insignificance compared with the drama unfolding in Brazil during the first months of 1888, These developments sprang from an interaction between D. Isabel’s increasing self-assurance as regent and the continuing radicalization of the abolitionist campaign. After acting as regent for six months, D. Isabel had gained her self-confidence and was willing to act boldly to advance the best interests of Brazil. “You grasp, my dear that I don’t concern myself only with frivolities!” she told the countess of Barral on January 11, “that I can think well, that I want to achieve the best possible for my country.” In particular, D. Isabel had become convinced that an immediate end to slavery was indispensable….. Despite these mounting pressures, the Cotegipe cabinet continued adamant in its defense of the status quo, and its intransigence simply infuriated the regent. (From Citizen Emperor, pg. 341 by Barman. This part of the book is available on Google books)
My understanding of the period is this: Isabel did not care for power like her father, however, after her last regency she became increasily more active and indeed had many plans for Brazil, she changed. In the quote used as source in the article (96) Rodman was talking about the 1870’s when the Viscount of Rio Branco almost “ruled” the country as regent. After the crisis with Cotejipe in 1888 she called two ministers of the Cotejipe government that were close to her, Antonio Prado and Rodrigo Silva. Antonio Prado called Joao Alfredo to be the president of the Cabinet. My proposal to solve this issue is: I believe it would be appropriate to change the phrase, indeed she was not interested in the 1870’s but she changed and in 1888 it was a different story, as can be seen in the quote by Barman. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are using Barman, I'll stick to him to make the discussion easier. See:
On the day following the emperor's return, João Alfredo, the cabinet's head, went to transact business with Pedro II. Many years later, when talking to Tobias Monteiro, a historian, th chief minister recounted what then transpired.
"When João Alfredo arrived at São Cristóvão, the princess received him on the veranda. On his inquiring about what was afoot, she replied that Mota Maia was with the emperor and that he would learn from him what was his [Pedro II's] frame of mind. Shortly thereafter, Mota Maia appeared and declared that the emperor had said that he did not understand the role of honorary emperor. Thereupon the princess raised her hands and said: 'I thank God that my father feels that he has the strength to govern and removes this great responsability from me.' João Alfredo remarked that she said this with an air of fierce sincerity."
If this account is accurate, it shows how little her third regency had influenced D. Isabel, how indifferent she was to the exercise of power, and how strong was her sense of filial duty."
Source: Barman, Roderick J. Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc. 2002, p.185 ISBN 0-8420-2845-5
Barman is clear in Pedro II's biography published in 1999, and even more clear in Isabel's biography published in 2002, that although she had a pivotal role in the abolition of slavery, and that for the first and only time she actually acted on her own, she still did not care about the monarchy. His chapter about her life in exile tells quite well her absurd behavior toward the monarchists who tried to convince her to help them restore the monarchy. I plan to explain all this much better in her own article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we are in a pickle. Maybe I am reading it differently than you, maybe we even found a weak spot in the work of Barman. I will look for his book in the library and get back to you. Lecen, you know I admire all the work you have been doing for Brazilian articles, no editor has done as much for this subject. So don't be concerned, I am only trying to help. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I'm not bothered at all. However, Pedro II's and Isabel's lack of interest in the monarchy's survival (and later, restoration) is a centerpiece on Barman's books. That's not a weak spot. You took a piece of the text during her third regency. Let's take a look at the same book (Pedro II's biography), but just a few pages later:
"After leaving the regency in August 1888, D. Isabel did nothing to dispel the long-standing mistrust of her character and behavior. Her acceptance of the pope's bestowal on her of a Golden Rose-a token of papal steem given only to lay persons with outstanding servic as a Catholic- was a vivid reminder of her religiosity. Worse yet, at the public ceremony on September 28, 1888, at which the papal internuncio delivered the rose to D. Isabel, she made a vow of obedience to the papacy. After her father's return from Europe, the princess made no attempt to maintain a role in public affairs. She withdrew into private life, devoting herself to social and artistic pursuits. The leading politicians viewed her with contempt. One former president of the Council of Ministers went so far as to call the princess "a donkey" [uma burra] in his private conversations." Source: Barman (1999), p.346
As you can see, her behavior did not change at all from how she acted in the 1870s. --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I was not able to get Barman’s book today. I had an interlibrary request put in. I got Fausto and Skidmore. They both talk about how hard it was for Isabel and Gaston to win over the elite. Isabel suffered as the result of Brazilian machismo and Gaston was considered a foreign, even if he was a naturalized Brazilian and served the country. Here is what I am going to do: since I don’t have the Barman book and both Lecen and Astynax have the sources and have reviewed the article, I will take their word for it. As far as I can see this article is fit to be a featured article.

Support Comment This is quite well done and appears fairly comprehensive. I have one relatively modest concern: in the religion section there is no mention of animism, indigenous faiths, or those originating in African slave populations. Considering the number of blacks and Indians in the census figures, the distribution of religion in these demographic groups probably merits mention on a par with the other low-population religions. Magic♪piano 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Magicpiano, thanks for taking your time to look at the article and review it. We really appreciate it. On religion: I considered writing something on African native religions as well as American native religions. The problem is that every tribe had its own religion. Obviously, I wouldn't be able to write on every single religion. Since most slaves were catholics, I saw no reason to make a further research on the several different religions among the minority in the slave population (itself a small minority in the overall Brazilian population). Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that you enumerate all of the religions; merely that it be noted that populations existed that followed such religions; right now there is no mention of them, even as a class. Magic♪piano 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mnn... Give me a day and I'll add paragraph about it, ok? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you added was along the lines I was looking for. Magic♪piano 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I believe I didn't understand exactly your point. You want me to add a note, after "present-day Brazil", that explains that Uruguay was once part of Brazil and it isn't anymore? If that's the case, I just added an extra note. --Lecen (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that was it. The article looks really good, and I will try to take a close look sometimes later today. Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting This is just up to Emperor and council of ministers, I'm working on the rest of the article and I'll update this after I complete each section.

--Gyrobo (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gyrobo, good to see you here. I believe Astynax is far more appropriate than I to answer you, but I'd like to make a comment: 1) *"...Pedro II, once declared of age..." Don't need "declared". I believe it does, since Pedro II was prematurely declared of age at 14. Whitout it, the reader might think that he turned 18 (as it was expected). 2) "The means to achieve that appeared within the Army ranks." Please clarify, what is being achieved? This part of the paragraph is unsourced, along with the preceding sentence." The end of the monarchy. That's what was to be achieved. The next paragraph explains how the military had a role in the end of the monarchy. Also, "A weary Emperor who no longer cared for the throne, an heir who had no desire to assume the crown, an increasingly discontent ruling class who were dismissive of the Imperial role in national affairs: all these factors seemed to presage the monarchy's impending doom." is unsourced because this is merely a summary of the entire paragraph (which is fully sourced). 3) "...dictatorial republic..." Could you explain what this is, or link to an equivalent article? Is is it really necessary to explain it? It's a dictatorship. The Military wanted to overthrown the monarchy so that they could create a dictatorship. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to your points and begin striking out issues that have been addressed once I have completed my review.

--Gyrobo (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your corrections and suggestions. I have made changes to reflect some of your points. I will comment on some of the others:
  • "...Pedro II, once declared of age..." Don't need "declared". In this case, he was declared of age some years prior to attaining the legal age of majority.
  • "...believed that there was no reason to uphold the monarchy." Perhaps "continue" the monarchy? I think the idea is more that he didn't do anything to defend the monarchy against attempts to undermine or reform/weaken it. I have changed the word to "defend".
  • "...and called the conservatives to the government." I've changed this to "called on the conservatives to form a government".
  • "This had been banned..." Should read "Slavery had been banned..." Slavery had not been abolished at this time, it was the ban on overseas importation of slaves, as stipulated by a treaty with Britain, which was being ignored. I have tried to clarify.
  • "They believed that the cabinet had become a political machine and that..." I've reworded to avoid the "and" and still reflect the idea.
  • "...an heir who had no desire to assume the crown..." should be "heiress". Even though the Imperial Constitution allowed that a female could inherit, I think "heir" is being used of a gender-neutral office (expressed in the masculine form—"heiress-to-the-throne" is no longer commonly used), rather than of her personally.
  • "...dictatorial republic..." It is a republic dominated by a military and/or civilian dictator or junta which assumes dictatorial authority by suspending, changing by fiat, or otherwise ignoring limitations imposed by the nation's constitution. The state remains officially a republic, and the framework of a republic remains in place (though effectively powerless to oppose the dictator or junta). I cannot find an article which exactly fits, but agree a link would be good here.
I look forward to reading your remaining comments. • Astynax talk

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Armed Forces[reply]

--Gyrobo (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Foreign relations[reply]

--Gyrobo (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Economy[reply]

--Gyrobo (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Society[reply]

--Gyrobo (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Ethnic groups[reply]

--Gyrobo (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC) European immigration[reply]

Up to Slavery, I'll continue reviewing tomorrow. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think I have addressed the corrections and suggestions you have made above, with these reservations:
  • "...and allowed the votes of former slaves and enfranchised non-Catholics." "slaves and enfranchised non-Catholics" are the final item in the list.
  • I believe the sentences at the end of the 2 paragraphs which seem not to be covered by references are the result of material being moved about. I have asked Lecen to copy the corresponding references so that those 2 sentences are more easily traced to the sources used.
  • "...mainly Italians, Spanish and Germans." Should the denomym be "Spaniards"? Are either correct? In this case, either could be used. The term "Spaniard" seems to be falling into disuse, but I agree that "Spaniards" reads better here and have changed it. However, if someone prefers "Spanish" to "Spaniard" (similar to those who prefer "the Scots" or "the Scottish" to the now seldom-used "the Scotsmen"), I have no objection to changing it back to "Spanish".
Thank you again for the corrections and suggested improvements. • Astynax talk 09:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Changes have been made, with the following comments:
  • *"...generations of interbreeding between..." to me, "interbreeding" is a term used for animals, not people. Perhaps a euphemism like "commingling" or "intermingling"? There doesn't seem to be a good term for what used to be called "miscegenation" that isn't offensive to someone. I believe "interbreeding" was used as an antonym of "inbreeding" (which is used for human reproduction). I have changed to "generations of inter-ethnic sexual relations", as the various alternatives seem less than accurate.
  • "The eastern coast of the northwest region is representative where, during the 16th and 17th centuries, sugarcane was an important export crop." I have replaced the sentence with "Sugarcane plantations on the eastern coast of the northwest region during the 16th and 17th centuries are typical of economic activities dependent on slave labor." • Astynax talk 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Done. • Astynax talk 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Implemented • Astynax talk 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Changes have been made with regard to the points listed above. • Astynax talk 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literature and theater

--Gyrobo (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Changes have been made with regard to the points listed above. • Astynax talk 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Reply: Lecen has added sources, and the other points listed above have been addressed. • Astynax talk 18:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My review is now complete. I will give you some time to make changes and respond to my points, then I will begin striking the ones that have been remedied and responding to your feedback. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

I will address the points you brought up tomorrow, but I wanted to gather all the remaining issues I had here. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • "..in an attempt to escape from Napoleon Bonaparte's conquests in Europe, established himself and his government in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro." => "..fled from Napoleon's invasion of Portugal and established himself and his government in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro."
  • "..forcing the Portuguese royal family into exile" => "..causing the Portuguese royal family to take refuge in Brazil."
-- EdJohnston (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Although I understand your concern with describing the transfer of the court to Rio de Janeiro, I'm not sure that any of our sources describe it as a "rump state". Instead, Bethell's Brazil: Empire and Republic, 1822-1930 (pp. 21-22), Graham's Patronage and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Brazil (p. 209), Needell's The Party of Order: The Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831-1871 (p. 16) and others describe this using the term "exile"—as do many other references not cited in the article. In a somewhat similar situation, Napoleon's removal Elba is almost universally described as an "exile" (the island was French territory, and Napoleon remained sovereign of Elba even though he abdicated the French throne). I'm certain that the Portuguese court regarded its sojourn in Rio as a strategic withdrawal to an overseas colony, despite the view of various historians. This isn't a major point in my mind, but I think we would need good outside sources to have the article drop a term employed by many scholars. I have less trouble with your first suggestion and have changed that sentence to reflect your wording. • Astynax talk 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues I performed all the copyediting I could do, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed.

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks again for the suggestions and tweaks to the article. I've inserted a footnote which hopefully explains the "dictatorial republic" term. • Astynax talk 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All set. Thank you for the kind words. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cryptic. Thank you for keeping your word and having come review the article. I will leave the anything related to grammar, prose and spelling to Astynax. Now to the issues raised:
1) The lack of further information regarding aother subjects, such as culture and society is because the lead would become too large and full of information that is not vital to understand the core of the article. See British Empire and Byzantine Empire, other two Featured articles about former empires.
2) The coup made Brazil a Republic, which still is today, with all its ups and downs. Since this article is about the period when Brazil was a monarchy, it should not delve into the republican era. The other two Featured articles cited aboce follow the same course. I could, at most, add a link to República Velha (Old Republic), the historical era immediately after the Empire.
3) "Overly wordy. I suggest cutting out 'as the ultimate arbiter in political disputes', as this chunk is not really necessary for full comprehension of the idea" I do not agree with this one. Removing it will make readers wonder why the lack of a monarch caused all the troubles.
Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead: If a topic is important enough to have a section in the body of an article, it is (almost by definition) important enough to be considered part of the "core" of the article. From here comes the common rule of thumb that every major section should be represented in the lead, an idea which is described in the Manual of Style: "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." I realize that a great deal of work has gone into the lead already and that you would probably not enjoy cutting out material to make room for cultural stuff. I will try my hand at a new lead in my workspace so we can figure out a good compromise without disrupting the integrity of the actual lead. Sound tasty? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of these articles are Featured articles. They can not be used for comparison. I pointed out that neither British Empire nor Byzantine Empire, both featured articles, has such detailed lead. They focus primarily, if not only, on the history of both empires.
However, this article about the Empire of Brazil has in its lead:
1)"huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse empire"
2)"freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth and especially for its form of government: a functional, representative parliamentary monarchy"
3)"also victorious in three international conflicts (the Platine War, the Uruguayan War and the Paraguayan War) under Pedro II's rule, as well as prevailing in several other international disputes and domestic tensions"
That means that History, Government, Economy and Society sections. Saying that the lead mentions only the history section is quite unfair. At most, you both could say that there is not mention of slavery and culture. At most. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the use of other featured articles as models: While it can often be helpful to use existing FAs as models for the structure of a similar article, it is important to keep in mind that featured articles are not perfect, nor do they reflect consensus of the entire Wikipedia population. Finer details, such as clarity, referencing, and MOS compliance may be the result of many editors over time, but the structure of any given FA is generally the result of a single editor, or in the best case, a very small group.
Let's consider your example of British Empire. As far as I can tell, this article was brought to FAC single-handedly by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. This diff shows how the article changed over the course of the FAC. Observe the changes to the lead: some technical junk, some phrasing issues, one paragraph was shortened, but the overall structure remained the same. Why? Because Red Hat magically got it completely right the first time and everyone agreed with his decision? No! It didn't change because the few contributors who actually made an effort to review the article in its entirety were either focused on the little details or didn't have the gonads to make a stink about it so late in the game.
Consider also a hypothetical user who is writing an article about a particular gamma-ray burst. The user uses GRB 970508 and GRB 970228, both of which are featured, as models for how to structure the article and its lead. When confronted about a particular structural issue, the hypothetical user deflects the issue by deferring to existing GRB FAs. Would such a user be justified in doing so? Abso-goddamn-lutely not! The structure of both of those articles was not the result of global consensus on the matter; it was simply dreamt up by one single editor who was just going off of his gut instinct (that editor was me, though that's besides the point).
tl;dr: Giving examples of existing FAs that suffer from a similar issue is not an adequate defense of this article's blatantly unbalanced lead. All it does is highlight one way in which those articles could be improved further.
Regarding the particular phrases you've highlighted: I used Dr Pda's prose size tool to calculate the sizes of the five major sections, from which some simple arithmetic can be used to determine their relative weight. History comprises 30% of the article body, while the other four sections—Government at 28%, Society at 25%, Culture at 9%, and Economics at 8%—collectively comprise the other 70% of the article body. Let's compare these numbers with the lead, which is currently 693 words long. The phrases which you've highlighted as pertaining to the non-history sections total up to 62 words, which is 9% of the total.
70% of the body of the article is being summarized by 9% of the lead. This is an imbalance that should not exist in any featured article. I said I would make an effort to try to address this myself, but before I take the time to do that, I want to make sure that you fully understand why my objection must be addressed. Is it now clear? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If Lecen is willing to consider some restructuring, I have a few ideas. I think the current lead tells a good story, and the article would be better off if it stuck with what the current lead covers. The other sections won't be wasted, because good sub-articles can be created that might eventually become FAs in their own right. EdJohnston (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have added very brief bits that broadly mention some of the major items I saw as missing (immigration, economic development and slavery). This article is intended as an overview of the Empire of Brazil. There is a separate sub-article (still incomplete at this point) which deals with the history in detail. If we take out everything but the history section from this article, it is no longer an overview. This is a historical entity which existed over time, not an existing nation where simply citing and then summarizing current statistics can be done. Some of the sections deal with how things evolved through the period covered, others are ancillary. I do not see WP:LEAD demanding that everything be summarized, only those things which are most important to the subject covered that are in the body of the article. This is a subjective decision, as is all summarization. • Astynax talk 09:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to various other points regarding the Lead: There is also subjectivity involved in the various ways people choose calculate what material constitutes "important" facets of an article, particularly in longer articles. At best, things like counting sections only give a rough approximation, and at worst, can lead to awkward and even more unbalanced leads. While WP:LEAD gives valuable guidance, it is just that: a guideline. It doesn't demand leads cover 100% of the material in the body, it allows for exceptions, it doesn't define "important" or "balance", etc. That the summary focuses on history should be understandable, as this is a former nation. The sections on culture, economy and society only get very brief mentions in the lead simply because, as I noted in response to your comment on the article talk, this article describes the Empire of Brazil in which the culture, economy and society at its beginning was very dissimilar to the culture, economy and society at the time of its collapse. It should be enough just to indicate that situations changed. • Astynax talk 09:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ming Dynasty (146 kilobytes), Tang Dynasty (145 kilobytes) and Byzantine Empire (150 kilobytes) are all featured articles similar to this one. And the lead also represents a summary of this historical State. --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has the issue of splitting the article been raised before in this ultra-long discussion? If not, as the article has been at FAC for six weeks, it is really rather late to introduce this point now, as a reason for opposing. The article is indeed long, but the subject is vast and comprehensive coverage is a FAC requirement. It is, however, a valid concern that the lead only covers the history; it does this very well, but the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit late to start discussing the idea of the article being too long. I'm also inclined to believe that comprehensiveness (which is one this article's greatest strengths) is more important than adhering to arbitrary guidelines. In other news, I've made an attempt at trimming down the existing lead to three paragraphs, which should give you plenty of space to add some more non-history details. Considering that the validity of my opposition has now been acknowledged by three other editors (EdJohnson, Vb, and Brianboulton), I think it's high time that we start making some progress on the issue of the imbalanced lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Let me reiterate my previous point that there is no requirement for "balance" in Wiki guidelines for the lead. Material from the "other" sections are currently folded into the material in the existing lead. The Empire is no longer in existence, and all of the article is historical in nature, so it reads most naturally to describe the various aspects together. Is there a particluar missing detail or details from the "Government", "Economy", "Society" or "Culture" section that is crying to be highlighted in the lead summary? If so, it would be good to specify exactly what needs to be added before chopping down the existing lead. • Astynax talk 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of WP:Lead and its specific requirement that the lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The "Society" section is over 3,000 words long (a quarter of the article) and the "Culture" section has more than 1,000 words; where in the lead are you claiming that these aspects are given their appropriate weight? I urge you to accept that the lead needs attention in line with WP:LEAD; it should not take long to trim the present four paragraphs into three and write a shortish fourth paragraph that summarises the missing material. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you tell me how could it be possible that other featured articles about historical States (such as British Empire, Ming Dynasty and Byzantine Empire, for example) passed their nominations? Now, with our nomination, the requirements have changed? And yes, since this is a historical State, its history should be more important then other topics. I wonder myself if any of you have actually read the entire article like the other reviewers, because all I see are complains about the lead. And I'll make Astynax's words my own: Is there a particular missing detail or details from the "Government", "Economy", "Society" or "Culture" section that is crying to be highlighted in the lead summary? If so, it would be good to specify exactly what needs to be added before chopping down the existing lead. --Lecen (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions that are answered in the body that could be answered in the lead: What were the principle exports? What were the dominant art forms and literary styles? Who were the notable artists from the time period? What races, ethnic groups, and religions were represented by the Empire's citizenry? How many people inhabited the Empire at its peak? What were the different branches of government? How powerful were the armed forces? There's plenty of good stuff in there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite one single featured article about a present-day of defunct State that have information in its lead about... "dominant art forms and literary styles", "notable artists", "different branches of government", etc...? --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of patience. Frankly. I'm not interested in arguments based on what may have happened in other articles. I am only concerned with this article, and the lead will not do as it stands. I have indicated what is necessary to remedy the fault, in an attempt to bring this 6-week saga to a swift conclusion. It's up to you whether you want to act positively or continue arguing, but in my view the article is not promotable as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words: "do as I want or this article will fail". So, I have to add "dominant art forms and literary styles", "notable artists", "different branches of government", into the lead even though no other featured article have them? Could someone simply answer one question I make instead of evading it? This is one huge article we had a lot of work doing it. In fact, it's one huge and brilliant article, I might say. I'm the one who is tired of being treated unfairly around here. I'm not doing anyone a favor and I did not ask any of you to review the article. If you did it, it was because you wanted. It won't hurt being more patient and polite with me and my colleages. No one has bothered to give me one single good reason to why should this article have information on its lead regarding artists, literary styles and others when no other similar article has any of those. --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really think Cryptic's attempt is an elegant solution to this problem. The lead is meant to summarize the article as a whole, and not go into great detail. It currently provides a very in-depth summary of the Empire's history and government, but really doesn't explain its economy, society or culture. Per WP:LEAD, a lead must give "emphasis... to material... [to] reflect its relative importance to the subject". It would be appropriate to devote one of four paragraphs in the lead to these topics. Pointing to other, similar articles as instances where this has not been the case only shows deficiencies in those articles.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made major changes to the lead right now. That's the best I can do. --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good, I think it manages to summarize sections of the article that previously weren't mentioned, and does so in a way that integrates it chronologically. Minor copyediting issues:
  • "...was elected through quite democratic methods to its time." could be rephrased as "...was elected through comparably democratic methods for its time".
  • "He also faced other obstacles:" could be a semicolon instead of a colon.
  • "...which within time became..." could be "eventually" instead of "within time".
  • "Brazil was also victorious..." doesn't really need "also".
  • "...as well as prevailing..." would read better as "...and it prevailed".
  • "...other international disputes and domestic tensions..." instead of "tensions", would "conflicts" or "clashes" be a better choice?
  • "...protestants and jews, although Brazil remained mostly catholic." Religious groups like "Protestants", "Jews", and "Catholics" should be capitalized.
  • "as well as others," this part doesn't seem necessary.
  • "...Brazilian culture was able to imprint its own uniqueness in each one of them." could be rephrased as "...each concept was adapted to create a culture that was uniquely Brazilian."
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new lead prose, all issues have been addressed. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The lead has been adjusted to my satisfaction and now, I believe, accords with WP:LEAD. It's a pity there had to be such a fight over this point; WP policy is very clear on this issue. But never mind; I agree that in most respects this is an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Opening sentence: "The Empire of Brazil[A] was a 19th-century constitutional monarchy that broadly comprised present-day Brazil[B] under the rule of"—do you mean "the area of present-day Brazil"? Or is the Tardis involved? :-)
  2. Could we have minus signs for the time zones in the infobox, rather than hyphens? WP:MOSNUM.
  3. Sorry to nitpick: logic? "The new country was a huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse representative parliamentary monarchy." So its ethnic diversity is somehow unexpected in a huge country?
  4. WP:MOSLINK says to try to make links as focused as possible. You might consider, piping the general Uruguay article to a section within it (Uruguay#Brazilian_Occupation_1821-30). That gets to the crux straight away.
  5. "Its bicameral parliament, as well as the provincial and local legislatures, was elected through comparably democratic methods for its time." Grammar, "were"? Unsure about the second "its" ... Brazil's time? What about "Its bicameral parliament, and provincial and local legislatures, were elected through relatively democratic methods for the time." What do you think? You could possibly lose the commas for smoothness. Up to you.
  6. "but immediately abdicated the crown to his eldest daughter"—my dictionary says "abdicate" is intransitive. Am I right in suggesting, then, "but immediately abdicated in favor of his eldest daughter"?
  7. "Brazilian visual arts, literature and theater developed during this time of progress." Maybe. It's a sweeping claim, the "progress" bit. If it's uncontentious, it's probably fine, even without a ref tag, in the lead. But progress in what respect(s)? "Although heavily influenced by European styles that ranged from Neoclassicism to Romanticism, each concept was adapted to create a culture that was uniquely Brazilian." This is a reference mainly to architecture, I'm guessing ... Is it?

I haven't looked beyond the lead. Tony (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:
  1. The first sentence has been made into 2, which hopefully will eliminate the confusion.
  2. The hyphens are not in the article, they are part of an infobox template used in many articles.
  3. I'm unsure as to why you jumped to the conclusion that the sentence says that ethnic diversity is "unexpected". It says no such thing, it simply is listing some characteristics.
  4. I'm unsure about linking to subsections which may well be changed, particularly in the case of Uruguay#Brazilian Occupation 1821–30, where there are problems with chronology (Uruguay had already been under occupation by the Portuguese, and that didn't change in 1821). Nor is the sentence describing that occupation, but rather simply points to the modern nation. Nevertheless, I've piped to the articles "History" section.
  5. I've reordered the sentence so that the grammar should be less confusing.
  6. Changed.
  7. The "progress" specifically refers to the times, and the progress generally exhibited by the economic, political, cultural, social and other trends. Architecture isn't mentioned until the next sentence. The theme of progress is part of the body, where corresponding references are given.
Thank you for your comments. • Astynax talk 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the discussion about WP:SIZE and the need for summary style, and wanted to point out that those other Dynasty articles did not pass FAC at that size; several of them grew by as much as 30% after passing FAC (which is not A Good Thing-- not only because they're too long, but also because a good portion of the text was never reviewed). For the record.

This article is currently:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I had another quick look. What is this? "Rs 100$000 (the equivalent in 1824 to $98.00 U.S. ...)". Could you see the currency section in MOSNUM concerning "US"?. The unfamiliar $ in the middle is explained way down in the "Currency" section. Until then, we will think it's a typo. Is it utterly necessary?
"Brazil's 19th century elections"—hyphen?
You've got to make up your mind. Either other articles can be used as comparison or they can't. --Lecen (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  • I've wikilinked the first instance of "Rs" to Brazilian real (old), for those unfamiliar the currency denomination. Yes, it is necessary to use the Brazilian currency, as what is being described is the minimum income required for enfranchisement.
  • I don't believe the source details the method used to compute the tax revenue ranking in 1858. Likely nominally using then-current exchange rates—I seriously doubt that Brazilian price records exist that are anywhere nearly complete enough for 1858 to allow calculating PPP. But if you have a source...
  • A hyphen has been reinserted into "19th century elections".
  • War and Navy are capitalized because these were ministries (e.g., it is "Defense Department", not "defense department").
• Astynax talk 08:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Take what Sandy says seriously, please. I've done the hard yards to get a nomination down to size, and it improved the readers' understanding, I'd say, and is an impetus to the creation of daughter articles. Sandy's point about bloat since promotion is a reasonable consideration.
  2. "The ministers of War and Navy"—Please see capitalisation at MoS. I'm pretty sure this is a "generic" reference (how many ministers of the navy? versus F Diez, Minister of the Navy). But if you insist on capitalisation, do it the right way: M for minister, and surely it's the Navy? I'd prefer "the Minister of War and the Minister of the Navy", to make it clear. (with lower case)
  3. Readers shouldn't have to divert to a link-target to find out what the bizarre colon and $ in the "wrong" places mean. Consider explaining in parentheses, briefly, on the spot.
  4. I'd climb down from the specific "eighth", since no one can be sure, and comparative cost-structures are a very complex science. Even "among the top ten in the world", or better, "high by international standards". Or show us the calculations and methodology: sorry, WP needs to be fussy about this kind of thing, because it will be requoted.
  5. This nomination has been here since 4 January. Why so long? Looks like it was a premature nomination. I'm not opposing, but I'll leave others to work out what to do. Tony (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reduced from 134 Kb to 128 Kb. That's the best I can do without removing its "broad" coverage of the topic. Pedro II of Brazil has 119 Kb. And I'm not talking about other featured articles such as Barack Obama with its absurd 180 Kb. I don't know why the article is still here. And no, it is not a "premature nomination". It's absolutely very well written and well sourced and it has eight reviewers who supported it. Why it's still here? That's a question you should make to the FAC delegates, not to us. --Lecen (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is now: "Brazil's international trade reached a total value of Rs 79.000:000$000 between 1834 and 1839."
Could be rewritten as: ""Brazil's international trade reached a total value of BRL 79 billion between 1834 and 1839."
The minimum income required to vote could then be written as BRL 200,000. It seems excessive to require English-speaking readers to grasp notations like "Rs 1:020$800"" in order to learn more about the Brazilian economy, even though Brazilians would write it that way.
Articles such as Economy of Chile have chosen to express nearly all values in US dollar equivalents (and do not quote any amounts in Chilean currency). Still I would not see a need to so far as converting all the currency amounts in the present article. It might not hurt to compare a few industry totals with the corresponding US values for the same period. In the sentence "The national revenue amounted to Rs 11.795:000$000 in 1831", does that mean tax collections or some quantity like GNP? EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I can not call it "BRL" because that would be original research. No single source use it. Reading Rs 79.000:000$000 is overly complicated to Brazilians also, and thank God, our currency is not written like that anymore (modern-day Real is identical to U.S. dollar). That's why I created an entire section only to explain what the currency meant and how is it supposed to be read, something that no other similar article bothered to do. National revenue is simply tax collection. If it was GDP, it would be called GDP. Since historical GDP is complicated to measure, and historians often give different values, I avoided mentioning any value in this article. This is why I didn't understand why Tony1 asked if "national revenues" were PPP or nominal terms. The article is clear: we are talking about national revenues, not GDP. But I'm not surprised, he said himself that he didn't actually read the article. I gave corresponding U.S. dollar values only where the original source gave it too. I can not simply do the math myself and put a number there since it would be original research. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Brazilians may write their currency amounts however they wish, but we are encouraged to follow WP:MOSNUM. It is not original research to use the ISO 4217 notation recommended in our own style guide. It would be helpful if you don't give the elbow to reviewers such as Tony1 when responding to comments. His point was that he found enough deficiencies that he did not choose to read further. That is simply his opinion, and it should be listened to. Since I don't participate in these reviews very often, this degree of contention is somewhat new to me, and I hope it is not common. A lot of work has gone into this article, and if there is a reasonable amount of cooperation, a good outcome should occur eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key thing here is that "[t]he Brazilians may write their currency amounts however they wish". If a certain syntax is what has been used historically, and is used consistently by the sources, and is in common usage, and is actually the target of discussion within the article, then it would hurt reader understanding to not use it. I believe WP:IAR exists for cases like this.
--Gyrobo (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't given anyone an the elbow. I made all corrections he requested. However, I have to follow what the sources say. I can not create something out of my mind. This is what I'm trying to say. What "enough deficiencies"? This article is very, very good. You talk like it's a complete mess and that's quite unfair. I still can not understand why this FAC nomination has not been closed so far after eight supports. Also: I'd like to understand why is this dicussion going on. What's the article's issue after all? --Lecen (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Coelho 1996, p. 268.
  2. ^ Vesentini 1988, p. 117.
  3. ^ Ramos 2003, p. 65.
  4. ^ Barsa 1987, p. 230 (v.4).
  5. ^ Adas 2004, p. 268.
  6. ^ Azevedo 1971, pp. 2–3.
  7. ^ Moreira 1981, p. 108.
More