Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed / not promoted due to nomination at FAC -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias[edit]

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) and • Astynax talk


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I need to know what is needed to bring it to FA level. That's the goal and any help would be highly appreciated. Kind regards, Lecen (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A reasonably long article, so I might need to do this in bits. As ever, I enjoy this period!

Lead:

  • "Brazilian War for Independence against Portugal" - worth linking
  • "In the face of major protests during 1831, Caxias remained loyal to Emperor Dom Pedro I, even though his own father and uncles deserted and betrayed the monarch" - Sequencing (the gap between protests and the emperor) makes it unclear what the protests were about. "Deserted and betrayed" - slightly pejorative terms, particularly given the "even though" bit.
  • " to his successor and son, Dom Pedro II." - "his" is unclear (could mean Silva or Dom Pedro I)
  • "faced with countless rebellions throughout the country" - literally countless, or just a large number?
  • "Caxias remained on the side of the lawful government. " - I'd be careful about the "lawful" bit here. "established"?
  • "Given the command of loyal forces" - "the loyal forces" (e.g. all of them) or "some loyal forces" (a particular element)?
  • "he was officially designated as patron saint of the army" - This confused me - aren't most patron saints actual saints? (NB: I could be really wrong, of course!)
  • "The Duke of Caxias is usually regarded by historians as Brazil's greatest and most accomplished military officer." - "is regarded by modern historians"? "is regarded by most historians"? ("usually" sounded odd) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hchc2009. thanks for finding some time to review the article. Let's see:
  • The lead should be summary and the article is about Caxias, not Pedro I. I plan to start expanding Pedro I's article in the near future. The use of the words "deserted" and "betrayed" aren't pejorative. If U.S. Generals, in command of U.S. troops, force Barack Obama, the lawful head of state of the United States, to resign during major politic protests against him, that would be a betrayal and desertion.
  • The main text says "father and uncles betrayed Pedro I and joined the rebellion". The verbs "betray" and "desert" in the lead do carry additional connotations in English (although they can also be accurate). Few would write today that George Washington "betrayed" and "deserted" King George, his lawful king, to whom he'd sworn the loyal oath; Washington certainly "rebelled" against him though. The same would apply to Cromwell and Charles I - and again you wouldn't normally write about Charles having a "lawful government" unless you were making a distinctly anti-Parliamentary point or similarly pulling out some other argument. My advice, unless the main text expands to explain a bit more (perhaps in a footnote), would be to simply say "rebelled against Pedro I" in the lead, which is quite neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of this has to do with these guys ending up on the losing side and the legitimacy of their cause. They broke their sworn allegience to the legitimate government. While George Washington might not today be described as having "deserted and betrayed" (though that is exactly how he was long viewed in British sources), few would quibble with Benedict Arnold being described using those terms. Nevertheless, I've changed the wording in the lead, as going into their desertion and betrayal (which I believe the sources support) would be more appropriate in the body of the article than in the lead, as you suggested. • Astynax talk 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be careful about the "lawful" bit here. "established" Lawful government is the correct one. It was the government formed under the constitution and democratic elections. If the word "established" it could imply any kind of government, including dictatorships.
  • "loyal forces". All forces loyal to the government in each of those provinces where he traveled to.
  • "Patron saint". That is the closest translation to the Portuguese word. Obviously, it doesn't mean that Caxias is a saint or that Brazilians regard him as a saint.
  • A difficult one. "Patron saint" can mean "exemplar" or "initial leader" in English, but you can't be officially designated as such, it's an informal label. I'm struggling to think of a better wording for it - others might be able to help. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the non-religious equivalent in English to Patron Saint? Protector? According to this English author, it should be "symbolic patron". --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed it to "the army's tutelary patron"
  • Historians regard him as the greatest Brazilian soldier. There isn't a single other Brazilian who could rival him. That's not I the one who is saying that, it's just how he is seen.
  • I'm not disputing his greatness; it's just that "usually" implies that sometimes they don't regard him as this. If he's always regarded as the greatest, then you can safely just say "Historians regard him as the greatest Brazilian soldier." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind if I suggest this, but shouldn't you read the article first, and then the lead? once you get to know the subject, it will be far easier to understand what is in the lead. I know the opposite should be the correct way to go, but it would be far easier for you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typically readers will read the lead first, which is why if I'm reviewing, I tend to start with that. There's a risk that if you do it the other way around, you then come to the lead with more information than the typical reader will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments in reply...
  • "Brazilian War for Independence against Portugal" - worth linking: there is a link in the infobox alongside this phrase. Some see this as too close to repeat the link, some think it is isolated enough that it needs to be repeated. I personally have no preference.
  • "to his successor and son, Dom Pedro II." - "his" is unclear (could mean Silva or Dom Pedro I): I've attempted to clarify this.
  • "faced with countless rebellions throughout the country" - literally countless, or just a large number?: In this case, literally countless. Outside of the capital, the situation was extremely chaotic for some years and no one knows how many rebellions were sparked, merged into other rebellions, died out on their own, or were suppressed by local authorities. The regency was often more concerned with internal political jockeying to be involved effectively in suppressing, let alone tracking, provincial uprisings. Only the major rebellions receive/received any attention.
Thanks for taking the time to read and give your input. • Astynax talk 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Luís_Alves_de_Lima_e_Silva,_Duke_of_Caxias&oldid=462491921"