History of Portugal (1777-1834)

Self-nomination. It's a pretty good article. I've worked really hard on this one. It has been peer reviewed and I now think it is ready to be featured. If there's anything yet to do I'll do it. Just say it. Thanks. Gameiro 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose History of Portugal during the Revolutionary, Napoleonic and restoration era merits a section on historiography, see 2b: comprehensiveness. Fifelfoo 07:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you think I need to explore more those periods? What do you mean with "restoration". Is it the 1640 restoration? (See: History of Portugal (1578-1777)). Thanks. Gameiro 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds to me like he's talking about French history (the 1777-1834 era coincided with the Revolutionary, Napoleonic, and Restoration periods in France), though that's no less puzzling considering this article is about Portugal. Andrew Levine 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• He means that the article should include a historiogaphy section - basically a section discussing what various historians have written about the topic. For example, Historian A might have argued for one interpretation of events, Historian B might have disagreed. I disagree with him - none of the other "history of..." featured articles I checked have one. Also the historiography doesn't strictly fall within the article's title.--Cherry blossom tree 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That still doesn't explain what Fifelfoo means when he speaks of the Revolution and Restoration eras. Andrew Levine 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but I thought that (historiography) was the part that Gameiro didn't understand.--Cherry blossom tree 11:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See the very active debate at Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article#Additional_requirement_for_articles_dealing_with_a_historical_subject_to_be_featured. There is no concensus yet about the historiography, though it seems that more users are for not necessarily requiring a historiographical section. AndyZ 22:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --BBird 14:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good article, and it don't need a section on historiography, not part of the FA criteria --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Can't see anything wrong with it. --Cherry blossom tree 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's an informative and well-written article. Alensha 17:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's an excellent article. Dawn22 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportOppose Sorry if I'm being picky, but I really don't like to see lists breaking up an article. Quite a few of them could be better rendered as prose in my opinion. Otherwise, an excellent article. Borisblue 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. That's easy to fix. Is anyone against? Gameiro 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree- the lists should be converted to prose. AndyZ 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object as it needs a copyedit. Some examples follow:
  • "Algarves, all Portuguese territory located south of the Tagus" (missing a word presumably)
  • Should not have things like "See: Iberian Union" in parentheses
  • "The aged Queen Maria died in 1816, and was succeeded by the Prince-Regent who reigned as John VI of Portugal." Seems to end this section rather abruptly
  • "he invasion proved truly important in the History of Portugal, as the country was deeply influenced by the accidental consequences of the war" "history" should be lowercase, reword this sentence
  • "would later be in the origin of the Revolution" either missing a word or has an extra one
  • "pledged for the Prince to stay" not clear what "pledged" means here
• This isn't an exhaustive list of problems, please give the whole thing a copyedit. Tuf-Kat 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any problem with some of your objections, like the "would later be in the origin of the Revolution". But, please, be bold and do some corrections yourself. I gave my best with my English. Is there anyone who can help? I've already tagged it for copyediting. Thanks. Gameiro 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through it again. I corrected all the points that Tuf-Kat made and others but it's quite possible that I missed some bits.--Cherry blossom tree 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The changes look very helpful and it looks much improved now, and I support. Tuf-Kat 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until POV issue is resolved. --Zsinj 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there a POV issue raised before? Gameiro 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page and history show no evidence of any POV issue at all- perhaps you misread the copyediting tag on the top? AndyZ 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good article, nice summary of the Portuguese history in those years Afonso Silva 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]