Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 17:32, 12 December 2010 [1].

---

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC) and • Astynax ^talk''

I am nominating this for featured article because we believe have been able to successfully recreate the high level of prose and information as seen before in other related articles to this one such as Pedro II of Brazil and Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. All three are closely linked to each other and together are a great source to understand the 58-year long reign of the second Emperor of the Empire of Brazil. The readers who enjoyed our previous articles will certainly enjoy this one too. Regards to all. Lecen (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Query The template "Empire of Brazil" contains a list of Statesmen and Military, what are the exclusion/Inclusion criteria for these lists? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The ones widely considered by historians the greatest in each field. This is why one section is themed "statesmen" and not "politicians". For a complete list of politicians, anyone can click on the respective category. But this FAC nomination is certainly not the place to discuss this. --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely! the article should have prepared before being submitted to the FA process. Who are these Historians and why aren't they mentioned in the template? Fasach Nua (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you keep the focus on what really matter? It is a template, it has its own page, you can create a discussion there. --Lecen (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose strange lists with no real point, fails WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Wait a sec. You're opposing a featured article because it happens to include an external template list? Under what criteria of WIAFA is that even justifiable? And outside of that, I'd like to mention that it's a rather dickish thing to do; the proper place for something like this to take place is on the talkpage of the template itself. Skinny87 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, regardless of this, I'll be reviewing this article within the next day or so. Skinny87 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop in to comment on this issue. Today's FA (Ozzie Smith) features Template:Major League Baseball on NBC - should that article be delisted because it has an external template similar to the "Empire of Brazil" template Fasach finds objectionable?

More directly, Fasach's objection is ludicrous. Nowhere in the relevant guideline does it say anything about templates requiring sources. They simply must group together clearly related articles for easy navigation, which this template does. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished with Fasach Nua's participation in this FAC nomination. He did not even bother to read the article itself, which is what does matter. Could you imagine someone opposing a very good article about Maximilian of Mexico, for example, only because it has a template with the name of the most well known monarchs in the Americas (Brazil, Canada, Inca, Aztec, etc..), but not all? You don't like the template, you don't like a category, or something similar, go complain there, not in an article which has nothing to with. What kind of behavior is that? How can someone like him be able to vote in here? I have two other featured articles - Pedro II of Brazil and Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná - on historical characters from the Brazilian imperial era and no one was bothered by the contents of a template. Amazing. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be distracted by this; an oppose is not a vote. Its value will be assessed in due course by the delegate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope so. But Skinny87 tried to reach Fasach Nua on his talk page and requested him to explain his vote in here twice (Here: [2] [3]) Do you know what he did? He simply erased them (Here: [4] [5]). How can someone like him be taken serious? --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Annoying though this behaviour might be, I still say don't be distracted. Try to concentrate on dealing with any substantial issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Brian's note. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion, unrelated to WIAFA; I don't find it helpful to completely disregard Fasach Nua's (or many FA reviewers') point. What is the inclusion criterion for that template? If you're using something in a Featured article, you should consider such matters and be able to answer the query, just as good practice and an indication that you've thought about it. I worked up the template {{Tourette syndrome}} for Tourette syndrome, and I can clearly explain the inclusion criterion for each entity; if you can't, that could be an indication of a problem. For example, I can't have just anyone adding people to the template with TS; they have to be notable and referenced to sources that meet WP:MEDRS, and that is the case for every person linked. Just sayin'. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: One small issue for attention: Note 74, Schwarcz (1998), is not defined in the references. Otherwise all sources and citations look good. I have not spotchecked content as I don't have any of these sources. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that sentence had been taken from Pedro II of Brazil. I removed the source since it is not important enough to stay in here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Again, like Pedro, this is great work. Good job--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems, or indeed, any external links at all. --PresN 19:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I've brought this up with Lacen before, and it is really quite a minor point about an otherwise sterling article, but it should be addressed. The link to Liberal Party in the infobox leads nowhere; it should be to, say, [[Liberal Party (Empire of Brazil)|Liberal Party]], even if that's a redlink for the moment. The other, related, matter is the inclusion of Rio Branco in the Category:Liberal Party (Brazil) politicians. That category covers a party that was founded over a century after Rio Branco's death; since he did not belong to it, he should be removed therefrom. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I dream of the day I will see people actually talking about the article itself in this FAC nomination. --Lecen (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The map is wrong. It uses the national limits arranged after the War of the Triple Alliance. And it may be misleading: as far as I know, there were no Bolivian soldiers in Urquiza's army, but the map and caption may suggest so. MBelgrano (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the caption. The map is not supposed to be a faithful reproduction of the limits as they were in 1852, or I believe what you mean, of the contested limits between those countries. It is just a map to allow readers to understand where the war occurred. Just that. I crossed with many editors who were not capable of understanding that Paraguay and Uruguay were different countries or where Argentina was located. --Lecen (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at this stage.Weakly support
• I'm happy with the scholarship and the research. One minor gap I'd note, though, is that I didn't quite understand what the two bishops were imprisoned for in the "Quarrel of the Bishops" - was it a "trumped up" charge against them, or were they simply prosecuted for their actions against the Freemasons?
• My major concern at this point is the quality of the prose. It is functional, but often not FAR in my opinion. The prose in various places isn't wrong, so much as slightly awkward. Prose quality is, inevitably, slightly subjective, and so I've given some examples below to illustrate my worries:

• "Their diplomatic objective to forge alliances was successfully concluded". The previous sentence established their diplomatic role, and I think the construction is awkward. This could simply read "They were successful in forging new alliances", for example.
• "Many decades later, José recalled the Bahia of his early life as "my native land, to which I have always dedicated much love"" The construction's a bit odd. How about simply "Many decades later, Jose described Bahia as "my native land, to which I have always dedicated much love."?
• "His articles in liberal newspapers attracted the attention..." Beginning a new section with a pronoun isn't ideal; I'd recommend putting his name in here and going for the pronoun in the second sentence.
• "sometimes considered a sect of the Liberal Party" Do you really mean sect? I'd not normally associate the word with an element of a political party. "faction", perhaps? Or "sometimes considered a front for the Liberal Party"?
• "and became more politically savvy" - is there a better word than "savvy"? "experienced"?
• "The Liberal Party did not easily accept its loss of power" - the "easily" feels archaic. "The Liberal Party was not content to lose its grip on power", perhaps?
• "The group was unable to convince the vast majority of the population of any benefits to revolt" - again, the construction feels awkward. "The group was unable to convince the vast majority of the population to revolt."? "Few amongst the population were prepared to revolt in support of the praieiros"?
• "However, all of these—including the Law of Free Birth—contained flaws which hampered their full effectiveness." Again, its the construction of the sentence. "All of these reforms, including the Law of Free Birth, contained crucial flaws", perhaps?

• There's some more examples later on, but it is this sort of issue that's worrying me. Happy to help further, as I like the underlying research and narrative. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply: All of the sentences you flagged as awkward have been reworded by editors. Regarding the arrest of the bishops, Brazil had been granted great control over the Brazilian Church by the pope (see the "Quarrel with bishops" section). They were essentially employees of the state and their refusal to adopt the government's position was seen as insubordination. I've tweaked the sentence to indicate that reason. • Astynax ^talk 07:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• As promised, a few more as I work through it:

  "Brazil's Conservative Cabinet decided to form military alliances with neighboring countries threatened by the dictator." - neighbouring to Brazil, or neighbouring to Argentina? (or both?)

I will answer only the ones dedicated to the subject, leaving prose, spelling, grammar and similar to Astynax, who is far more capable than I to deal with that. To both. As you can see in the map in the article, between Argentina and Brazil there were those countries (Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay) ambitioned by Rosas. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Paranhos's writings began to support Brazil's proactive foreign policy,". I'm wandering if a more natural construction would be "Paranhos began to write articles in support of Brazil's..." or "Paranho began to support Brazil's..."?

  "Carneiro Leão departed for Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital. On 23 October 1851 he decided to take Paranhos as his Secretary, passing over more experienced supporters." Does this specifically mean that he left for Montevideo and selected Paranhos along the way? (Or could it just say "Carnerio Leao departed for Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital, taking Paranhos as his Secretary..."?

He selected before leaving. The date mentioned is the one when both departed from Rio de Janeiro. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The selection of Paranhos, however, was not arbitrary." I'm not convinced you need this sentence, actually - the rest of the paragraph would work well on its own.

  " a keen eye for detecting potential" - I'd go for "spotting" potential, rather than "detecting".

  "I did not consult anyone to name you. What influenced my spirit were your merits that I appreciated. I hope you will prove that I was right". I don't know what the original Portuguese is, but I'd suggest/guess that a more natural English translation might be: "I did not consult anyone before naming you. What influenced my decision was that I could appreciate your merits. I hope you will prove that I was right."

It would be more correct as: "I did not consult anyone before naming you. What influenced my decision were your merits that I have appreciated. I hope you will prove that I was right." --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "(Brazil's ally against Rosas who went on to become President of Argentina in 1862)" This breaks up the sentence quite a lot. Could it go into a footnote, or be shorted to " Bartolomé Mitre, the Argentinian polician, would recall..."?

I believe that making it clear that Mitre was not merely any politician, but later President of Argentina (in fact, he commanded in person the Argentine army in the War of the Triple Alliance) and that he was the lader of the Argentin Unitarians, the political party allied to Brazil against Rosas, is important. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bartolme Mitre, the later Argentinian president, would recall..."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "When Carneiro Leão returned to Brazil, Paranhos was left behind," If you're focusing on Paranhos, could you reverse this? "Parahanos was left behind when Carneiro Leao returned to Brazil..."?

  "The time spent in that capacity allowed him to acquire an understanding of the dynamics characterizing Hispanic American nations of the period." The beginning doesn't feel quite right. "Paranhos' time in Uruguay allowed him..."?

  "In a general manner, I approve what our..." I think there's an "of" missing: "I approve of what our..."

  "armed conflicts between political factions, as had occurred in" Its formally correct, but I would have gone for "...factions, such as had occurred in..."

  " It had become usual for parties which had lost power in elections to attempt to regain control by force of arms. " > "...power in elections to seize back control using force."?

  "Under the new arrangement, political disputes were only to be settled democratically in parliament." It read slightly oddly. How about: "The Conciliation aimed to strengthen the role of parliament in settling the country's political disputes."?

  "passionate partisanship" > "partisan politics"?

  "Carneiro Leão had succeeded in electing him a national deputy in 1853" - "succeeded in having him elected as a national deputy"? The construct suggests Carneiro was personally voting for him, which doesn't sound right.

Carneiro Leao used all his influence and power to elect Paranhos. In Brazilian 19th Century elections (a well as in the United States, for example) candidates did not actively campaign. In fact, they relied more on influence, political links, allies, etc, to be elected. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I think that "having him elected" would capture that better than "electing him". Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Upon the sudden and unexpected death of Carneiro Leão in September 1856, his Cabinet only managed to survive him by a few months." > "After the sudden and unexpected death..."

  "The Emperor, although a critic of the Conciliation as it had been implemented," > "The Emperor, although critical of the way the Conciliation had been implemented,"?

• Will work through the rest if I get a chance later. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see that, thank you. --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hchc, I made all changes you suggested. Is it good now? --Lecen (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed to "weakly support". I think the text is looking better, and as noted before, I think the scholarship is first rate. I'm still concerned about whether the prose is truly "engaging, even brilliant" - the fairly high level required of a FA - and I'm thus "weakly" supporting. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the article is failing? I'd prefer a full support than a reluctant one. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - another fine article. Well done, meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments. I will add comments below as I work through the article.

• Aureliano Coutinho isn't linked; I would think from the description of his influence that he should be linked, though since I can't find an article about him I assume it would be a redlink for now.

Unfortunately, there is no article about him, even though he was one of the most influential politicians (if not the most) in the 1840s in Brazil. Since I dislike creating article that I know that I will never improve and also that no one else will, I never bothered to write one about him. Thanks for reviewing the article! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to create the article (or ever expect to), but redlinks are a good thing. I would have redlinked it myself but am not sure of the right target -- should it be Aureliano Coutinho or Aureliano Coutinho, Viscount of Sepetiba? I would think the latter, based on the format you used for this article. Mike Christie (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• If you have the years in which his parents died that would be helpful -- we know he was young, but how young? Four? Twelve? There's a big difference to the reader.

My sources are no explicit to when exactly they died. They only say that Paranhos` parents died when he was a child, with his mother dying just a few years after his father. A book I have says that his father died when he was learning to read and write, which means that it happened when Paranhos was around 5 or 6 years old. His mother died a few years after that, probably when he was around 8 or 9.

A pity, but if the sources don't say, there's nothing to be done. Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• At the end of the "Early years" section you say he became a journalist in 1848, but then the next section says that he was elected in 1845 with the patronage of Aureliano Coutinho, whose attention he had attracted with his articles. Presumably these articles were written when he was a journalist, so something is wrong with the dates here. Or did he start writing articles before he actually considered himself a journalist?

My mistake, he began his career as a journalist around 1844.

This still says 1848 -- I would change it myself but that places it out of sequence with the prior sentence which refers to 1845, so a little rewording might be needed. Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that. You might want to improve it if you believe it is not good. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked; looks fine. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think a little more explanation might be in order for the period around 1847. The Courtier Faction is excluded from power, during the period when there are four consecutive cabinets all made up of Liberals. At this point I assumed that the Courtiers were excluded after 1847, since they are only sometimes considered to be a sect of Liberals. But then when the Conservatives take power in 1848, Paranhos loses his influence. How did he have influence if he wasn't in the cabinet? Hadn't the Courtier Faction lost power in 1847?

The courtiers were high ranking palace servants, as well as powerful politicians. They are considered by some historians as a faction inside the Liberal Party, itself a loose coalition of groups that had little in common with each other. Around 1847 Pedro II dismissed Aureliano Coutinho - the leader of the politicians who were part of the Courtier Faction - from the office of president (governor) or Rio de Janeiro. He also sent to Russia as an ambassador for many years Paulo Barbosa, steward and leader of the servants who worked in the Imperial Palace. Meanwhile, since 1844 the Liberal Party governed the country, but was uncapable of keeping any cabinet for more than a year. Without Aureliano Coutinho and Paulo Barbosa, the two men who influenced Pedro II and helped them remain in power, the Liberals were doomed. Pedro II grew tired of their incompetence and flawed government and once the last cabinet resigned in 1848 due to a vote of no confidence from the parliament, he called upon the Conservative Party to form a new cabinet.

That's helpful. I went back and reread this section and I think I just wasn't reading it carefully; the information is there. It's just complicated. I'm striking this comment; I don't think there's a need to change anything. Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "this would be complicated by the events that quickly followed": what does "this" refer to? Paranhos' loss of influence? That doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that can be complicated. Do you mean "the situation would be complicated"? Even then I think it's a bit vague. Certainly his position is made more difficult by subsequent events; how about "his position would be complicated"?

Indeed you should reformulate "With his party no longer in control, Paranhos lost much of his influence, and this would be complicated by the events that quickly followed." Aureliano Coutinho did simply disappear, he was still a senator, but that meant little after Pedro II removed him from the office of governor. He lost all influence and power he once had. That meant that whatever power Paranhos had by then, it was all lost without his benefactor`s aid. The events mentioned is the Praieira revolt that destroyed the remaining reputation that the Liberal Party had. In my opinion, you shold simply remove the complete sentence. The text will flow better without it.

Agreed; I've cut the phrase. Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Brazil's territorial integrity was threatened as well as the reestablishment of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata": a reader unfamiliar with South American history is unlikely to know what is intended here; I looked it up and I think the intention is to say that the possible reestabishment of a regional hegemony such as the Viceroyalty had been was regarded as a threat, and that de Rosas's polices were the cause of that threat. How about "The Argentine dictator also had ambitions to conquer Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia, and his planned reestablishment of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a regional empire containing much of Brazil's territory, threatened Brazil's territorial integrity." That's assuming he did explicitly plan to reestablish it and was not merely building an empire by whatever land he could grab. Even if that's not right, the sentence doesn't work as it stands.

  Rereading, I think my suggested version is definitely wrong, since it seems the territorial integrity threat and the concern about the Viceroyalty were independent. I still think the sentence needs to be changed, however. Mike Christie (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be changed. You should understand that Rosas had no desire to recreate the former viceroyalty. He did not want an Empire, that is, a monarchy. What he wanted was to reunite all lands that were once part of the viceroyalty into one large and powerful republic where he would rule as a dictator. Unlike Brazil, that remained as one piece, the Hispanic colonies broke into themselves into several different nations. Be careful not to put "containing much of Brazil's territory". He was after the southern province of Rio Grande do Sul, which is a very small part of the Brazilian territory.

So the reference to the Viceroyalty is simply shorthand to indicate the territory Rosas was trying to acquire (apart from Rio Grande do Sul, which hadn't been part of it)? If so, I think it could be dropped completely, since it hasn't been mentioned before and will not be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the topic. In that case, could we change it to "Don Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator of Argentina, had assisted the Tatters separatist rebels in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande do Sul during the 1830s, and continued to attempt its annexation. In addition to the threat to Brazil's territorial integrity, Rosas had ambitions to conquer Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia"? If it's important to mention the Viceroyalty, perhaps because it was an important referent in the diplomacy of the time, we could make it"Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia, reestablishing the territory of the former Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata under his own rule." Would that work? Mike Christie (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you should simply remove all references to the viceroyalty. As you said yourself, for a reader who knows nothing about Hispanic-American history, mentioning the viceroyalty will only make everything harder to understand, which is unnecessary. Simply saying that Rosas wanted to annex those countries to form a powerful nation under his dictatorial rule will be enough. Brazil was then like the Byzantine Empire: the government used its excelent diplomatic corps to throw the Hispanic republics against each other, making them weaker. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the section on the war of the Triple Alliance contains essentially no information about the war between 1864 and 1869, just this: "The Paraguayan invasion in 1864 led to a conflict far longer than expected". I think a little more is needed -- at least a sentence saying that Paraguay invaded Argentina and Brazil at the end of 1864 and early 1865, and that Brazil liberated its provinces in 1867 -- and so forth.

I do not agree with you on this one. I did not mention the military operations regarding the Praieira rebellion, nor the Platine War, nor the Uruguayan War and so on. If I expanded the text to explain what happened in those wars as you are suggesting, the text would lose its focus and become too large. The interest in here is to explain the war from the foreign diplomacy view, which was what Paranhos was involved with.

I've struck the objection; rereading that section I think there is enough context. You're right that the article shouldn't cover military operations, but the reader has to know a little about the war if it is relevant to Paranhos. I think there's enough there. Mike Christie (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reading the article on the War of the Triple Alliance makes me wonder about your characterization of the years after the war as a golden age. That article says that the debt incurred during the war was crippling, and even refers to a "depression". Is that inaccurate? If not, shouldn't it be reflected in the discussion of the aftermath in Paranhos's article?

The War of the Triple Alliance article is wrong and unsourced, not counting that is a very messy text. I recommend Pedro II of Brazil#Conclusion of hostilities and Pedro II of Brazil in the War of the Triple Alliance#Victory. Also, not included on those articles is the testimony of a Brazilian P.O.W. who fought in the war, the later General E. A. da Cunha Matos: "When the fight ended, Brazil had its finances so relieved, that it raised the salary of the military, of the civilian public servants and undertook great material enterprises." Source: Versen, Max Von. História da Guerra do Paraguai. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia, 1976.

OK, striking this one. Mike Christie (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Only one would later achieve notoriety": do you really mean "notoriety", or should this be something like "would later go on to political prominence"?

Yes. All the other ministers were minor politicians. Only Joao Alfredo would later become not only a notorious politician, but one of the leader of the Conservative Party. And most important of all, he was the prime minister when the law that abolished slavery completely was passed.

"Notorious" implies that he was unfavourably regarded, though; is that really what you mean? Was he widely disliked? Or should it be "famous" or "prominent"? Mike Christie (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Prominent is better. He went to become one of the most respected politicians in the end of the Empire. After the monarchy was ended by the republican coup, he left national politics forever, which is often lamented by historians. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made the change. Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• "In an attempt at rectification": if I understand the intended meaning here, I think "reform" would be a better word than "rectification".

  Well, no; you use "reform" later in that sentence. How about "In an attempt to improve the quality of the clergy"?

Yes, it could be. The government spend years improving the quality of the clergy, sinc the elder generations lacked the qualities necessary. --Lecen (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made the change.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Image review. Thanks to the very reasonable copyright laws of Brazil I was able to determine that all of the historical images in the article are public domain. The only one I was not able to determine absolutely was File:Conde d Eu visconde do rio branco 1870.jpg, a photograph taken in 1870 by Carlos César. I was not able to find a death date for Carlos César, but he would have had to have lived for 70 years after taking the photo (2010 - 70 - 1870 = 70) for it to possibly still be copyrighted. I think it is quite reasonable to assume it has public domain status. If anyone can find a death date for him, please add it to the image description page. Also, I would suggest removing the border from File:Visconde_do_Rio_Branco_1879.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Almost nothing is known about Carlos César, author of the photographs reproduced in here on the Paraguayan War [a.k.a. War of the Triple Alliance], except for the fact that he was the owner of Universal Gallery, located in the gaúcha city of Humaitá. The photographs were taken from a small album dedicated to the viscount of Rio Branco and belongs to the collection of the National Historical Museum. Themed Memories of the Paraguayan War and dated 14 August 1868..." Source: Vasquez, Pedro Karp. O Brasil na fotografia oitocentista (Brazil in the 1800s photograph). São Paulo: Metalivros, 2003, pp.89-90 ISBN 85-85371-49-8 Online version: [6])

As you can see, he was already active in 1868 and before the war (that begun in 1864) he owned a photograph workshop, which means that he was an already experienced photographer. I can hardlybelieve that a man... lets say around his 30s in 1864 could have survived until 1940, that is, 76 years later, in a time where the most fortunate ones could expect to live until the 60s at most. Lastly, thank you for making the review! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent article and meets FA criteria. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the article does seem to meet all the criteria. I do have a couple of points to raise, though:
  • Of the 9 endnotes, 4 are uncited. Is this a problem?
  • Did you consider using this source, or is it superfluous?
• All in all, well done. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Superfluous, since everything it says (Paranhos' eraly career as a liberal and journalist, the surprise of his choice as Carneiro Leão's aid in 1851 and Pedro II's role in breaking apart the Conservative Party in 1872) is already mentioned in the text. However, I used this book, and a lot, as a source in Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. I will add the sources to those footnotes. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I added sources to all footnotes, excepet for the one about the Platine region, which I deemed unnecessary.--Lecen (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is well-written and informative; I particularly like the legacy section. I do however, note fairly common violations of WP:MOSCAPS in the article; words like "Cabinet", "Secretary", "Emperor", "Marquis" (the latter several when not followed by an individual's name) occur with some frequency with unnecessary capitalization. Magic♪piano 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a red link (Aureliano Coutinho, Viscount of Sepetiba) in the lead. Remove the link, as a red link in the lead doesnt looks good. You can consider to put the text in Itallics instead. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  This is incorrect; red links are not a negative and should not be removed for aesthetic reasons. See WP:REDLINK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Lecen asked me to review the images in this article. I'm inexperienced at reviewing image quality, and I cannot review accuracy of maps or coats-of-arms, but have at least verified that the copyright status of each image is acceptable. commons:User:Roke, who created the map, has had images nominated for deletion, but rarely on any reasonable grounds. One image, File:Cerro de Montevideo desde la ciudad. Año 1865.jpg, has a distracting historical watermark in the lower-left corner - I took the liberty of replacing it with a version without the watermark. There are no other issues that I know of. Dcoetzee 01:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Now Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ISBNs missing for some of the refs
  • What year did his father die?
  • "Paranhos decided to return to civilian life focusing in his career as a teacher, as well as a journalist" -- when?
  • How long had the Courtier Faction "dominat[ing] Brazilian politics"?
  • You go from the Courtier's losing favor in 1847 back to 1844...
  • "The Emperor attempted, without success, to convince Paranhos to continue as head of the government.[119] He explained his reasons in a letter to the Emperor: "Your Majesty knows that I wish to deliver my post to whoever is better to occupy it. If I have not become sick in public thus far, there is no doubt that I am tired."[128]" -- huh? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Replies and further explanation:

• ISBN: not all older and non-English works are assigned ISBNs. Lecen can double-check that, however.
• As stated in a previous answer to the question as to when his father died, the sources do not give a date.
• He decided to return to teaching and journalism after the fall of the Liberals. There is not an exact date given in the sources of which I am aware.
• The sources do not give a starting date at which point the Courtier Faction began dominating Brazil's government. They acquired power and began acting in concert over a period of time.
• The year 1844 you mention occurs in the range of dates: "From February 1844 through May 1848". It isn't really jumping back in the narrative, but rather just describing the period during which the Liberal Party was in control.
• The sentence from Paranhos is giving his reason for refusing. I have made a change to make it clear that it is Paranhos who is writing.

Thanks for going over the article and commenting. • Astynax ^talk 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Replies:

• ISBNs: Astynax is correct.
• Father's death: unfortunately, the source which used in this article are not clear to when his parents died. All it is said is that his father died when he was learning to read and write (around age 5 or 6) and that his mother followed his father a few years later.
• When he became a civilian: in 1843, just after he graduted in the Military Academy. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear before. I reworked the text and I hope it is better. Please improve it if any of you believe it has to.
• Coutier Faction: the Courtiers began acting as early as 1833. However, they became an all-powerful political faction after Pedro II was declared of age in 1840. Is it necessary to add this?

Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ISBNs: I did not know that some non-English works have not been assigned ISBNs. You learn something new every day.

Death: alright.

Coutier: it would be nice if you could add it just for the curious, but not necessary. Good work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting, comprehensive article. I've made a number of copyedits, and added nbsp before page numbers. I have a question:
• The downfall of the Liberal Party, the loss of Paranhos' benefactor and the Praiera rebellion (which he condemned) caused him to withdraw from politics and focus solely on journalism. - who is "he" and "him"? The subject of the sentence is not apparent. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to review the article, Jayjg. The subject is Paranhos himself on both "he" and "him". If you want to improve the section, you may do so. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded to (hopefully) make that clearer. • Astynax ^talk 03:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I re-worded it again, it was still a bit strained. Looks good now. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Image review needed, I do not see an image review here by an image reviewer with a known history at FAC: I am unaware of the qualifications and knowledge level of those who did review images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Both reviewers are administrators in both English Wikipedia and at Commons. --Lecen (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.