Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/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 Laser brain 01:37, 23 February 2011 [1].

---

Empire of Brazil

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

• Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1

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

• 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)

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)

Why? --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Sample only, why does this sentence require seven sources?

• The term denotes a broad category which includes caboclos (descendants of whites and Indians), mulattoes (descendants of whites and blacks) and cafusos (descendants of blacks and Indians).

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

• 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)

• Support. I am supporting this for FA on 1c, 2c, and for the lack of POV in the montage: In future I would like to see Brazilian editors expand their sourcing basis and interrogate closely the possibility of scholarly journal articles, but, I don't think it overly affects this survey level work. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC) For the discussion leading to this support, please feel free to read Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1#Discussion of Citation issues raised by Fifelfoo which I moved there to unclutter this and encourage other reviewers. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: "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: 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: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)

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)

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)

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)

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 The article is very well-written. My only recommendation is to use the simple form of names. Example: use Viscount of Rio Branco, instead of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. It will save some space and make it easier to read. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Mnn... Give me a day and I'll add paragraph about it, ok? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What you added was along the lines I was looking for. Magic♪piano 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment that broadly comprised present-day Brazil requires a clarification note to clearly show the territorial differences between present Brazil and the empire. Nergaal (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I meant (also) add a [B] after "present-day Brazil" similarly to how [A] is now, explaining there what is the difference (i.e. from present day in File:Cisplatina.png. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

• "...branch of the thousand-year old Capetian Dynasty." Should be "thousand-year-old", with a second dash.
• "...leaving his eldest son and heir Pedro to rule Brazil..." Should be commas before and after Pedro, as in the previous sentence.
• "...sparsely-populated and ethnically-diverse empire..." Adverbs ending in "ly" don't need hyphens in situations like this.
• "...he entered into a long conflict of ideals..." Could read better as "ideological dispute".
• "...a weak regency was created and the power vacuum..." This could be split into two sentences to improve readability, "...a weak regency was created. The power vacuum..."
• "The nation grew to be distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors on account of its..." Could be "The nation became distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors by its..."
• A related issue, you seem to use "neighbors" and "neighbours" throughout the lead. Please ensure that the version of English used throughout the article is consistent.
• "...zealously-guarded..." Again, don't need the hyphen.
• "...under his rule," Best to just specify "...under Pedro II's rule," he wasn't referred to in the preceding sentence.
• "Unlike its neighbors, the Empire of Brazil was not troubled (even during the chaotic regency period) by dictatorships or repression of civil rights." Would read better as "Unlike its neighbors, the Empire of Brazil was not marked by dictatorships or repressions of civil rights—even during the chaotic regency period."
• "Additionally, Pedro II himself had no desire that the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and, as he grew older, he made no effort to maintain support for the institution." Would read better as "Additionally, Pedro II himself had no desire to see the monarchy survive beyond his lifetime and, as he grew older, had made no effort to maintain support for the institution."
• "...believed that there was no reason to uphold the monarchy." Perhaps "continue" the monarchy?
• "Despite the lack of enthusiasm for a republic among most Brazilians," Perhaps "Despite the lack of enthusiasm among most Brazilians for becoming a republic"?
• "...leaving behind his son and heir Prince Dom Pedro to rule Brazil..." Might want to put commas before and after "Prince Dom Pedro" to make the sentence breathe easier.
• "The Portuguese government then made moves toward revoking the political autonomy that Brazil had been granted beginning in 1808." Would read better as "The Portuguese government immediately moved to revoke the political autonomy that Brazil had been granted since 1808."
• "...of the newly-created..." Again, don't need a hyphen.
• "...popularly-elected legislature..." Hyphen.
• "A regency was elected to rule the country in the meantime." Would "interim" read better here?
• "...had risen to power during the 1830s had by now also..." should be "...had by then..." because it's all in the past tense.
• "The liberals, however, took the initiative and contrived to pass an initiative to lower..." Repetitive wording. Would read much better as "The liberals, however, contrived to pass an initiative that would lower..."
• "...inner circle while avoiding any public disruption." Should this be "...without causing..."? The current wording makes it seem as though the dismissals are unrelated to an unspecified disruption.
• "...and called the conservatives to the government." Sounds kind of awkward. Could this be rephrased as "...and appointed conservatives to government positions" or "...and formed a new, conservative government"?
• "...and the newly-appointed conservative cabinet..." Hyphen again.
• "The first came in confronting the trade in illegally-imported slaves." Could be rephrased as "The first was confronting the trade of illegally imported slaves" or "The first was confronting the illegal import of slaves".
• "This had been banned..." Should read "Slavery had been banned..."
• "...uniting it into a cohesive entity." The subject is unclear; how about "...uniting Brazil into a cohesive entity"?
• "They believed that the cabinet had become a political machine and that..." The following sentence uses "and", so how about "...a political machine, that..."
• "...Paulino Soares de Sousa, 1st Viscount of Uruguai — all former ministers..." Em dashes should not be spaced, per MOS:EMDASH.
• "the "Progressive League"[55]," the reference should come after the comma.
• "...the consul issued orders for British warships to capture Brazilian merchant vessels as indemnity." Perhaps link indemnity?
• "As war with the British Empire threatened..." Would read better as "loomed" instead of "threatened".
• "...an ominous signal to the monarchy." This implies the monarchy saw it as a signal. If historians are declaring it a signal, it should read "...an ominous signal for the monarchy."
• "...had no experience of the Regency and early years of Pedro II's reign..." Could be rephrased as "with the Regency" instead of "to", or perhaps "...had not experienced the Regency..."
• "...had clearly taken a political side in the slavery question..." should be "on" the question rather than "in".
• "...an increasingly discontent ruling class..." should be "discontented".
• "...seemed to presage the monarchy's impending doom." If the source says the factors contributed, you don't have to say "seemed to", just say it "...presaged the monarchy's impending doom."
• "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.
• "modernization", "reorganization", "favoured", "favorable", again, please ensure that the type of English used in this article is consistent.
• "...to be respectively uninterested..." Does "respectively" really help the sentence? The Emperor and the politicians are being grouped.

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

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)

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)

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

• "...were entirely subsidiary to the national government." Odd wording, would read better as "...were entirely subordinate to the national government."
• "...so long as it did not violate or encroach upon..." The subject of the previous sentence may not be clear, so it's best to specify "...so long as the law did not violate or encroach upon..."
• "However, it was not permitted..." Please specify the subject, "However, the Assembly was not permitted..."
• "...national interests, e.g. foreign relations." Would read better as "...national interests, such as foreign relations."
• "...and, in theory, charged with..." The commas make it hard to see where the responsibilities are grouped, so how about "...and were, in theory, charged with..."
• "...limited to a period in office..." Would read better as "...limited to a term..." or "term in office".
• "manoeuvring" is another word that is tied to a specific version of English.
• "...it transferred such autonomy as the towns possessed to the provincial governments." Seems a little awkward, could it be rephrased as "...it transferred the towns' autonomy to the provincial governments" or "...it granted the provincial governments the same autonomy exercised by the towns."

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

• "As an illustration the lowest paid..." Needs a comma after "illustration".
• "...in the province of Minas Gerais the poor constituted..." Another comma here, after "Minas Gerais".
• "...70% of the electorate and in Irajá in the province of Rio de Janeiro, they were 87%." Could be rephrased as "...70% of the electorate. In Irajá in the province of Rio de Janeiro, 87% of the population lived in poverty", if the source supports that. There's a difference between being poor and living in poverty, and the editors of this article are more qualified than I am to make either claim.
• "...but their children and grandchildren could" There should be a comma here before the ref.
• "(13% if not taken in consideration the slave population)" Could be rephrased as "(13% of the non-slave population)"
• "...and attempts were made to correct abuses, [147][155]" There's nothing wrong with the text, but there's an extra space between the comma and the references.
• "...it eliminated the two-stage electoral system..." the changes are plural, so it should read "they eliminated..."

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

• "...starting with Independence (1822–1824)..." other date ranges in this paragraph use two digits for the terminating year. It would be more consistent to have "1822–24".
• "highly-experienced" hyphen.
• "...opposed the monarchy in the belief that..." should read "...opposed the monarchy under the belief that..."

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

• "...which would give Brazil's present-day configuration..." would read better as "which would give Brazil its present-day configuration".
• "...no serious conflicts with her neighbours to the north..." Brazil is referred throughout the article by the gender-neutral "its", this needs to be fixed here.
• "...due to the buffer of almost the impenetrable and sparsely populated Amazonian rainforest.[E]]]" Word order would be better as "...due to the buffer of the nearly impenetrable and sparsely populated..." There also appears to be a broken link here after the note, with two extra braces.
• "mutually-agreed" hyphen
• "...became known as Alabama Claims." Should have "the" in there.
• "canceled" is another word to look at, the US version has only one "l", but if you choose to go with British English, it has two.

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

• "The unit of currency under the Empire and until 1942..." could be reworded slightly, "The unit of currency under the Empire from its founding until 1942..."
• "This means that the colon functioned..." You don't need "This means", the statement itself should be enough for the reader.
• "...the millions comma... thousands comma..." this sort of assumes that the reader uses a currency where the separator is a comma; it should just be "separator".
• "...the colon is the actual group separator and the $ sign is used only for separating the smaller group of units." This seems redundant, given that the first half of the sentence said exactly this.
• This section should also explain what role the period had in currency denomination. In the Overview section, a period is used as a kind of group separator, but the notation isn't explained.
• "To give an idea of the economic potential of the country during the Empire" could use a comma at the end to give readers a nice respite.
• "19th-century" doesn't need dash.
• "...in the production of these any of these items..." seems to be a redundant "these" in here.
• "In this period of twenty years..." when was this period?
• "Brazil was not the only country were agriculture played an important role on exports." spelling, should be "where", and could be rephrased as "Brazil was not the only country were agriculture was an important export."
• "...the growth of exports,[202]," extra comma after reference.
• "...from 1850 and valued at approximately Rs 401.630:600$000 with an annual growth rate of 10.94% since 1850." seems to repeat "from 1850", could this be rephrased slightly?
• "The first railroad line, with only 15 kilometres (9.3 mi)..." should have "of track".

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

• "Ever since the second half of the 18th-century, when Brazil was still a colony..." Don't need the dash in "18th century", and the word "Ever" is unnecessary here. Could be rephrased as "Since Brazil's colonial period in the 18th century..."
• "...in a decree of 1829..." would read better as "...in an 1829 decree..."
• "...tasked with collecting census information but their census reports were often incomplete or not done at all." Could use a comma after "information", and replace "none at all" with "nonexistent".
• "The small population and small number of towns revealed an enormous but sparsely populated country." This has no source. If it's original research based on a synthesis of other sources, it should be removed.
• "...between the ages of 0 and 10..." Sounds awkward. Could this be rephrased as "...younger than 10 years old..."?
• "The northeast region and the southeast region together held" could be rephrased as "The northeast and southeast regions combined contained" and would avoid repetition with the word "held" in the following paragraph.
• "...had grown in the meantime to..." is "in the meantime" really needed here? Perhaps you could just say "between the two censuses, the population increased by X people/percent" instead of giving absolute numbers.

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

• "...known as the escravocratas [slavocrats]..." this is back up in Apogee. In all other instances of translation, you use "(English: )". This needs to be changed to be consistent.
• "...the descendants of caboclos and mulattoes interbreeding also fall into..." the word "interbreeding" doesn't seem necessary here. And the word "fall" should be "fell", past tense.
• "...mainly Italians, Spanish and Germans." Should the denomym be "Spaniards"? Are either correct?
• "Although whites could be found throughout the country" could use a comma at the end here.
• "19th-century Brazil" dash
• "multi–ethnic nation" the en dash is inappropriate, because "multi" is not being joined to "ethnic nation"; a regular hyphen ("multi-ethnic") will suffice.

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

• "...created the so-called "partnership system" to attract immigrants." Perhaps a small explanation of what the partnership system is? And unless the source was deriding the system or describing its name as ironic, you don't need "so-called".

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

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)

Slavery

• "... a figure which fell throughout the lifetime of the Empire..." should be "had fallen", the current wording seems to imply that it began falling in the year described.
• "...generations of interbreeding between..." to me, "interbreeding" is a term used for animals, not people. Perhaps a euphemism like "commingling" or "intermingling"?
• "The eastern coast of the northwest region is representative where, during the 16th and 17th centuries, sugarcane was an important export crop." Could be rephrased, "The eastern coast of the northwest region was representative of this trend; during the 16th and 17th centuries, sugarcane was an important export crop."
• "...18th-century.[247] In the 18th-century..." Don't need dashes here, because "18th century" is a noun. It's also kind of repetitive, perhaps the second instance could be "During this period..."
• "...19th-century..." dash

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

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)

Nobility

• "...during their lifetime, e.g. the Duke of Caxias..." would read better as "...during their lifetime, such as the Duke of Caxias..."

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

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

Religion

• "Only after arduous negotiations was the government able to restore good relations with the clergy" could use a comma at the end here.
• "ultramontane" is linked, but Ultramontanism was already linked in this paragraph. Perhaps the first instance could include a short description of what Ultramontanism is?
• "especially in Brazil where..." could use a comma after "Brazil" and before "where".
• "From the outset these restrictions were ignored and the authorities did not interfere." could be rephrased as "From the outset, these restrictions were ignored by both the citizenry and the authorities."
• "The main non-Catholic faiths in Brazil, although a very small minority, were Judaism and Protestantism." This sentence, and the one preceding it, need a source.
• "...immigrated from Russia to escape the anti-semitic pogroms following the assassination of Czar..." could use a link to Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire.
• "...beginning of the 19th-century" dash.
• "In the 1860s immigrants from the southern United States settled in São Paulo after fleeing the Reconstruction policy following the end of the U.S. Civil War." Could use links to American Civil War and Reconstruction era of the United States. This could also be rephrased as "Following the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, immigrants from the southern United States seeking to escape Reconstructionism settled in São Paulo."
• "There followed various mission activities sponsored by several American churches including Baptists, Lutherans, Congregationalists and the Methodists, who were the most active of the Protestant sects." Awkward, could be rephrased as "Several American churches, including the Baptist, Lutheran, Congregationalist and the Methodist churches, sponsored various mission activities. The Methodists were the most active of the Protestant sects."
• "As well as preaching they built churches, started schools and published newspapers..." who are "they"? Could this be rephrased as "The immigrants also founded schools and published newspapers..."
• "center-western" should be "mid-western".
• "This resulted in the creation of syncretic creeds..." could use a link to Syncretism.
• "...fled further west..." should be "farther", it refers to physical distance.

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

Reply: Implemented • Astynax ^talk 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Culture

• "New developments appeared" could use a comma at the end here.
• Lithography and photography could use links.
• "...mainly by educating generations of artists but also by serving as a guide to style." could be rephrased as "mainly by educating generations of artists, but also by serving as a stylistic guideline."
• "Its origins laid in the foundation..." the origins of what? The subject is unclear.
• "Its members-of whom the most famous was Jean-Baptiste Debret-were French émigrées..." You should definitely be using em dashes (—) here.
• "...to teach the French art doctrine and the neoclassical style..." could use a link to which art doctrine is being referred to.
• "...in place of Portuguese baroque." would read better as "to replace the" or "rather than the".
• "...later renamed as the Academy of Fine Arts in 1820 and in 1824 its definite name during the monarchy:" Could be rephrased as "...later renamed as the Academy of Fine Arts in 1820, and in 1824 received its final name during the monarchy:"
• "...and not just the Academy of Fine Arts..." doesn't need "and".
• "That sponsorship would pave the way not only to the careers..." should be "for" the careers.
• "...Romanticism had largely supplanted neoclassicism..." Romanticism needs to be linked, and "neoclassicism" needs to be capitalized.
• "The Academy did not resume its role on simply giving education:" should use "providing" rather than "giving".
• "...João Zeferino da Costa and others." Is the "and others" part really necessary here? If you're talking about the most renowned artists, you should already have them all listed.

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

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

Literature and theater

• "...by Portuguese literature and its predominant Neoclassical style." doesn't need to be linked here if it's going to be linked above. Same goes for "Romanticism" in the next sentence.
• "Romanticism, then, was regarded as the literary style that best fitted Brazilian literature..." implies that it was a consequence of the previous sentence. It could be rephrased as "Romanticism at that time was regarded as the literary style that best fitted Brazilian literature..."
• "...uniqueness when compared to foreign literature.[298] In fact, it would be during the 1830s and 1840s that..." could be rephrased as "uniqueness when compared to foreign literature;[298] during the 1830s and 1840s..."
• "19th-century" dash
• "...translations from the Italian..." doesn't need "the".
• "As in other areas, the theater was also sponsored..." sounds redundant, the "also" is unnecessary.
• "Newer styles that coexisted with Realism, Naturalism and Parnassianism" could use a comma at the end here.
• "On the other hand, Parnassianism..." doesn't need "On the other hand,"
• "Notable Brazilian Parnassian poets were:" doesn't really mesh with the preceding phrase, "Naturalist Brazilian writers", and the colon in unnecessary. Do you really need to specify "Brazilian" in these instances? You don't specify it when discussing playwrights, so right now it's inconsistent.
• "National theater was also influenced by Realism but decades earlier than literature and poetry, in 1855." could be rephrased as "National theater was also influenced by Realism, decades earlier than literature and poetry, in 1855."
• "Among the most famous realist playwrights..." the word "among" was used in the preceding paragraph, so it's kind of repetitive. Perhaps "Famous realist playwrights included".
• "Until the end of the Empire and beyond..." is very unclear about what time period is being referred to. "Throughout Brazil's history"?
• Perhaps link "companies" to Theatre so that readers know the article isn't suddenly discussing companies in the sense of industrial corporations.
• "Plays were not the only type of performing arts in Imperial Brazil:" should end with a semicolon instead of a colon.

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

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

Miscellaneous

• "First and Second Mexican Empire" should be on two lines. There's no need to condense them.
• Portal:Brazil is pretty nice, and it's not like the See also section would lose space if a portal link was put in.
• The infobox at the top uses "1847–1848" instead of "1847–48". Let's make all date ranges in the article have a consistent notation.
• In an image under Parliament, the caption is "The senators are voting the Golden Law..." should read "voting on".
• Under Provincial and local government, the caption "All provinces had a great autonomy..." doesn't need "a".
• Under Elections, the caption "...19th-century elections..." doesn't need a dash.
• Demographics, "19th-century" doesn't need dash.
• Under Ethnic groups, the caption claiming "...over 80% of the population lived along the eastern seaboard." needs to be cited.

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

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)

Remaining issues

• "...monarch in the government; and the unsuccessful..." There really doesn't need to be a semicolon here, because you're only talking about two things; a comma will suffice.
• "...Pedro II, once declared of age..." Don't need "declared".
• "...an heir who had no desire to assume the crown..." should be "heiress".
• "On 13 May 1888—while Pedro II was receiving medical treatment in Europe—Princess Isabel, after the bill was passed by the parliament, signed the law (which became known as Golden Law) that completely abolished slavery in Brazil." This is extremely awkward and needs to be rephrased. Perhaps, "While Pedro II was receiving medical treatment in Europe, the parliament passed, and Princess Isabel signed on 13 May 1888, the Golden Law, which completely abolished slavery in Brazil."
• "republicanism" was already linked earlier.
• "...noted that "Rarely has..." should be "...noted that "[r]arely has..." to match the casing of the sentence.
• "Article 2 of Brazil's Constitution held both the Emperor and the Assembléia Geral..." Would be better worded as "...codified the positions of both the Emperor and the Assembléia Geral..." or "...codified the position of Emperor and set up the Assembléia Geral..." or "...defined the roles of both..."
• "This endowed the Assembly with both status and authority. The Constitution created legislative..." Would read better as "The Constitution endowed the Assembly with both status and authority, and created legislative..."
• "...political, family or other ties." Should use the adjectival form of family: "...political or familial ties" Are the other ties important to mention?
• "...the colonial period in the 16th-century" There's only a dash when a century is used as an adjective, in this case "16th century" is appropriate.
• "...and allowed the votes of former slaves and enfranchised non-Catholics." Repetitive use of "and", the first one can be eliminated.
• "Also, the previously dominant old Baroque style was superseded by Neoclassicism." Doesn't need the "Also," and should link to Baroque architecture in Portugal and Neoclassicism.
• You could use a link to Émigré.
• "The school's main goal was to encourage French aesthetics and the Neoclassical style to replace the outmoded Portuguese baroque then prevalent in Brazil." could be rephrased as "...to replace the prevalent baroque style."
• "...each identifying primarily with his or her own nation of origin, rather than as an African." This still needs work, it doesn't explicitly say "homogeneous" or something along those lines. There needs to be a description of what "as an African" means, I think the wording you want is something along the lines of "homogeneous bloc".

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)

Arbitrary section break

• Comment: I think the wording of the Portuguese government's flight to Brazil in 1807 could be improved. Just now I checked the Government in exile article and see that this episode is not included there. It's actually in List of rump states#Nineteenth century. The government did not go into exile, since Brazil was Portuguese territory. So here are my proposed changes:

• "..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: 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)

• Support — Excellent work by all involved. I found the article to be extremely comprehensive, easy to understand, and well-illustrated. The citations were clear and understandable, and the prose flowed smoothly, with a minimum of problems. You've done a great job, and this article definitely deserves to be featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

• "...the government exploited the ready credit available to Brazil..." would read better as "...credit readily available..."
• "It made available..." What was made available? You didn't say what the government did to exploit the credit. And could this be rephrased to avoid repetition of the word "available"?
• "...dictatorial republic..." Could you explain what this is, or link to an equivalent article? You've provided an explanation here, but that really needs to be in the article.

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

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)

• Support on prose, and strongly suggest that you put a ref on that definition, as well as note B and the sentence "Slavery was also common in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Espírito Santo and again in Minas Gerais during the 19th century for the cultivation of coffee which became vital to the national economy.". This article is very, very nice, and everyone who worked on it should feel good about themselves.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All set. Thank you for the kind words. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I've begun leaving prose comments on the article's talk page here. It's mostly just minor tweaks, but I am concerned about the balance of the lead section. As I mentioned on the talk page, the lead focuses almost exclusively on the History section while ignoring Culture and Society. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Comment: I agree with Cryptic C62 that there is a mismatch between the lead and the body of the article. Since I like the current version of the lead, and think it flows well, I would prefer to fix the problem by moving the extra sections (unmentioned in the lead) into other articles. Compare Second French Empire. While that empire covered a fixed period of time (as did the Empire of Brazil), and the article might have taken the opportunity to describe all aspects of French life during that period, that article confines itself to the politics of the period. In my opinion that's the best way to handle it. The French Third Republic article works the same way. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: 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 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)

• Support - I read through this like two weeks ago and could have sworn I reviewed it somewhere. Anyway, this is a damn good article, and I'm proud to support its promotion to FA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "This page is 134 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." I agree with this automatic comment. In particular, the lead is much too long and detailed. It doesn't correspond either to the content of the article. I believe the article has to be trimmed down to a bearable size. Vb (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I made major changes to the lead right now. That's the best I can do. --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

All done. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Support the new lead prose, all issues have been addressed. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Works for me. In future endeavors, it would greatly behoove you to drop this bizarre notion that the purpose of an FAC is to compare a given article to existing FAs. That is simply not the case. Regards, Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment—thanks to the nominators and reviewers for staying on top of this issue. Cryptic C62, thanks for updating your status so quickly. It would be useful to hear from others who have commented on the lead on whether they are satisfied. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• File size: 407 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 129 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 102 kB
• Wiki text: 131 kB
• Prose size (text only): 81 kB (12885 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 10 kB
• Images: 1151 kB

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

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?

• "By 1858, national tax revenues ranked as the eighth-largest in the world"—is that in nominal or PPP terms? Tony (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Brazil's 19th century elections"—hyphen?

• "The ministers of War and Navy were, with few exceptions, civilians"—why the W and the N?

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:

• 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)

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)

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)

• Comment: There might be a way to use Réis currency in the article with more familiar notation. For example, see how pesos are handled in Economy of Mexico. The symbol MXN is used for (new) pesos. Even though pesos are written with the dollar sign in Mexico the article manages to avoid '$' in most contexts referring to pesos. WP:MOSNUM says "If there is no common English abbreviation or symbol, use the ISO 4217 standard". Since BRL is the ISO 4217 symbol for réis, I think that a typical sentence could be rewritten this way:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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