User talk:Astynax/Archive 6

More sections

Well, if there is one thing that displease me is an unfinished work. I wll try to end the Empire of Brazil article at least. Could you take a look in "Armed Forces" and "Economy" sections? Also, I read again the "Slavery" section and there is something that I disliked. The way it is written makes it look like every single Brazilian had a slave. Since they represented 15% of the population and were even unequaly distributed across Brazil, that would look odd. What I meant when I wrote it was that indeed there were poor (and even vagabons had slaves!) people who had it, even ex-slaves, nonetheless, slaves were not an omnipresent force in Brazil. Most of them were found in coffe farms in the southwest. Could you somehow improve that? --Lecen (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried a few things with the Slavery section. I will try and look at the other sections later. • Astynax ^talk 08:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Robinson's Arch

Hi Astynax,

I gave the Egaliterian prayer site section another go, tell me what you think.

Regarding a park article: I could start one and I do have got the references, but it's a rather big undertaking (take a look at the Hebrew wiki page [1]) and I do think Wilson's Arch and the Royal Stoa, as well as the Umayyad era palaces, are rather more important than the park itself. I hope to get to one of those in the near future. Poliocretes (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Hi

I did a copyedit of the article and noticed that you have changed a couple of things back.

I had a discussion with User_talk:Lecen#Empire_of_Brazil where I simply stated the problem of using a "quote" vs "copying it directly out of a book without crediting the author".

You have restored some sentences which I find difficult to accept:

• "return of Pedro I as regent instead of his son." to "return of Pedro I as regent for his son." - if Pedro I was to return as regent then surely it was "instead of his son (being emperor/holding power)" and this may be better explained as such for those who may not know what regent actually means :¬)
• "population but few captaincies" to "population. But few captaincies" - Never start a sentence with ". But" the but is a continuation of the preceeding statement
• "mestiço (English: Mixed one) and is a" to "'mestiço (English: Mixed one). This is a" - Same as but to But

These are only copyedit matters but short sentences are really not a good way to write and I think you have reduced the quality of the article by reverting so many of my edits which linked short sentences in to longer ones. let me show you what I mean.

These are only copyedit matters. But short sentences are really not a good way to write. I think you have reduced the quality of the article. By reverting so many of my edits. Which linked short sentences in to longer ones.

• "This lasted until the emperor was fully grown and experienced purged everyone linked to the group including Aureliano who no longer held any influence in politics after Pedro II imposed an unspoken ban on him holding any political position.<ref>Barman (1999), pp.<del></del><ins> </ins>112–114<del>&</del><ins>.&</ins>lt;/ref>"
  

to

• "This lasted until the emperor now fully grown and experienced, purged everyone linked to the group including Aureliano who no longer held any influence in politics, including Aureliano—whose influence in politics disappeared after Pedro II imposed an unspokenan implicit ban on himfrom Pedro II precluded his holding any political positionpost.<ref>Barman (1999), pp.<del></del><ins> </ins>112–114<del>&</del><ins>.&</ins>lt;/ref>"

This is most important - a large proportiaon of the "xxx" statements appear to be direct copyright violations. They should either summarise the sentence, and have the " " removed, or they should have the name of the person being quoted (in the case of this it would be something along the line of "Barman said in his book "XXX""

I cannot stress how important this is.

You (collectively) have introduced a massive amount of text in the last few days, 14:22 20 June (62,958 bytes) to 16:30 1 July 2010 (87,716 bytes) and although I appreciate that many people can indeed write in a fine style some of the text appears like it may be directly copied

For example - who in ther vocablulary uses promulgated ? If it is the case that they are copied I suggest that this be remedied.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was directly copied. I understand that you "fell" here out of nowhere and consequently is not aware of our work in here. The text that you saw in the article was taken from three articles: Pedro II of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. That's why "large amount of text" was added so quickly. Also, direct quotations do not need to have the name of the historian presented (that is, "according to historian XX 'that happened because' the other person said...") but would be necessary if we were presenting an opinion (such as "according to historian XX, Emperor YY 'was one of the greatest monarchs of the W country' and as such..."). Since those are not opinions, but merely information about something that happened there is no need to say the name of the author. HOWEVER, obviously, there is the need to show the correct source ("In 1822, Brazil became independent as 'a stable parliamentary monarchy' and continued for a few decades" <start of ref>Author X, p.Y <end of ref>). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this to Talk:Empire of Brazil#Changes of 2 July, along with my response. • Astynax ^talk 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page - pay particular attention to " see MOS:QUOTE#Quotations Attribution The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, my friend, the present matter has been resolved. Don't worry about fixing the text right now, it is better wait a little more until I am finish with it. I've also noticed that the history section is getting largers than I thought. It should be far smaller, which isn't that bad. When all it's done we'll move the text toe article about the history of the empire and we will make some changes to keep it smaller in the article about the empire itself.

One last thing: since Chaosdruid has volunteered to help, what do you think of asking him to take a look in Pedro II of Brazil to share his thoughts about it and waht is needed to make it a featured class article? If you agree with my proposal, you could ask him, but if you don't for any reason, I can ask him tomorrow. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's ok! When you close the peer review, you could nominate it to GA, or do you want me to it? --Lecen (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, could you take a look in the "Independence" and "The Constituent Assembly" sections? You should take a look in all edits made into the article since your last edit: I added a lot of text to other sections too. --Lecen (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to look through the new text tonight or tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Acra

Hi Astynax,

Thanks for nominatimg me a as co-nominator, it's much appreciated, as is all your hard work on the subject. Poliocretes (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the comments from Esuzu in the old GA about refs in the lead section. Personally I feel that if the lead already has some and I am expanding it, maybe put one or two more in. If the lead has none and the lead accurately summarises the body of the article and all points in the lead are ref'd in the text, I wouldn't put them in either.

The problem is that the MOS simply states "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none". This means that while three or four main editors are working on a piece they may choose to not use refs in the lead. Once the article goes off for peer review though...more editors = more opinions = "votes" although they haven't contributed. Articles go to FAC without and with refs in lead and both types get through.

Anyway enough of my rambling lol - the main reason I am here is to ask if you use AWB or thedash script ? I find them damned invaluable. AWB is a bit complicated to use but the dash script can be added to use in the editor. AWB can fix the nbsp and dashes at the same time also.

When doing copyediting due to the "copyedit required" tag (which is how I "fell" onto the Empire of Brazil article btw lol) I usually run the dash script before starting, then put the article through AWB after copyediting. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (sig seems to have gone missing due to session timeout)

No problem - just remember to press the little pencil symbol to turn it off before using and then again to turn it back on once you have finished :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB os pretty awesome in many ways - I use it to do things like automatically change "don't" to "do not" and "won't" to "will not" as well as its normal functions for correcting spelling it has things like the ndash and nspace and checking for dead links etc

It took me a while and a few mistakes before I got used to it - maybe a week I think but it was well worth it lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná

Astynax, I nominated Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná to featured. I believe it is good enough and I certainly would like your help on dealing with the reviewers. Also, I made a few edits recently and I would like to ask you to check it out. --Lecen (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try and check out the new edits tonight, and I will watch the nomination also. FA nominations are now taking several weeks (an article I nominated is going into its 3rd week). The GA reviews are also going very slowly, as I am certain you have noticed. Because it is slow, we will probably have more time to fix any problems the reviewers identify. I hope it goes well. It may give us some clues as to what they will be looking for when Pedro II is evaluated. • Astynax ^talk 02:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Latter Rain (1880s movement)

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Ryukyuan Shinto

Hey Astynax, thanks for your support over at Talk:Ryukyuan Shinto! I was wondering if you had any idea where we might find more people to comment/weigh in on the page renaming. I already posted at the Religion and Japan project pages... DaAnHo (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What is left to do on Pedro II of Brazil

Hey, Astynax! There a couple of thinks I would like to talk with you about the Pedro II of Brazil article. First, in "Patron of arts and sciences" section there is a sentence that says: "He was elected member of the Royal Society,[179] the Russian Academy of Sciences,[180] The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium,[181] the American Geographical Society,[182] and the French Academy of Sciences, an honor previously granted to only two other heads of state: Peter the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte." Well, the honor mentioned refers only to the French Academy of Sciences. That is, beyond Pedro II, only Napoleon and Peter became members of the the French Academy of Sciences. The way it is written will probably lead the reader to believe that the text is talking about all academies, and not only the last one mentioned.

Second, I found this piece of text on Roderick J. Barman's biography of Pedro II: "At one extreme it can be argued that the coup d'etát was an unjustified and uworthy return for a half-century's unstinting dedication to the welfare of Brazil. [...] At the other extreme, it can be argued that the emperor bore prime, perhaps sole, responsability for his overthrown." (p.399) I believe this is very correct. Historians might condemn the coup and criticize Pedro II's cruel exile but we can not forget that he brought that to himself. For decades he went directly towards his doom. What do you think of addint that to the text? If you believe it is ok, perhaps it should go to the legacy section? But where exactly? I leave that to your judgement, which I trust. --Lecen (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made these edits. For Barman's view, I have put it into the first paragraph of the Decadence section, because we already had a quote from Lyra in that place. By including a brief bit from Barman, the quotation from Lyra can also be shortened, and that will be good for those who don't like long quotes. It looks like many of the GA reviewers are taking a break, so it is slow. But at least the category does not have many ahead of the Pedro II article. • Astynax ^talk 04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, I asked for another Wikipedian editor to edit Pedro II's image in the infobox. Take a look and tell me what you think of it, and if it needs any change. --Lecen (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me—very much like the hand-tinted photos with painted details from the 19th century. • Astynax ^talk 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It has a strange orange tone on his beard and hair. I asked for the editor to make it into a more "blond". Perhaps it will look better. Also, I will continue writing the article about José Paranhos, the Viscount of Rio Branco. Once it is finished, I'd like to start working in Pedro I of Brazil article. It will take some time - which unfortunately is becoming more and more rare to me - but I believe we shall have a few good article about Brazilian history available in Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look in "War of the Triple Alliance, Later years and death and Legacy" sections in José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco's article? --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will do that this evening, unless something else intervenes. • Astynax ^talk 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, you wrote that the emperor tried to convince Rio Branco to create a new cabinet. I don't know if that happened. It seems that he asked him to continue with his cabinet despite all troubles. Also, the way you wrote the consequences of his words ("Do not disturb Slavery's march [toward its doom].") is not what was meant to. It is not that he was asking for the end of slavery. He was in fact asking not to touch it anymore. He feared that any other law against slavery could have dire consequence to the monarchy (as it indeed had). He thought that the Law of Free Birth was enough and was a matter of time until slavery was over. That is why is mentioned that when slavery was extinguished, the ultraconservative faction headed by the second Viscount of Uruguay (son of the first Viscount of Uruguay who was Rio Branco's protector and one of the Conservative elders) joined the republicans. I will tell how this faction appeared in the section "Law of the Free Birth". P.S.: I am all done with "War of the Triple Alliance" section now). P.S.2: Done with "Uruguayan War" section too. P.S.3: Done with "Law of Free Birth" section. Only one more section to go. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not have time today or tomorrow to do much, but should be able to go over the article this weekend. • Astynax ^talk 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. I haven't finished the article, anyway. --Lecen (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am finally done with article. All is left to do is the lead and add those boring boxes of succession at the end of the article. --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good! I will try to look over the article tonight. • Astynax ^talk 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is one or two paragraphs to go in the lead. I'll ended it tomorrow. If you have time, you can also correct any mistakes in the lead as it is right now (and you will find plenty of them). Also, I must admit that the text itself is a little weak but I am sure you can improve it as you always did very well. One last thing: in it, there is a mention to Rio Branco's retirement, wich is not mentioned in the main text. Perhaps it would be be good to do it and move the source? --Lecen (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Acra promoted to FA

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Awarded to Astynax for the tireless work in promoting Acra (fortress) all the way to FA status. Poliocretes (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Astynax, it's been a pleasure working with you (although you did most of the work), I've learned a lot. Poliocretes (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't underestimate your own contribution. I'm learning, too! • Astynax ^talk 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Rio Branco

At last! Done! Could you, once've corrected any mistakes, nominate it to good article? If you don't have the time, let me know and I'll do it myself. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to go through it tonight or tomorrow. There were some minor edits that I didn't finish. • Astynax ^talk 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no hurry. On the "Cotegipe" or "Cotejipe" issue: books call him "Baron of Cotegipe" because in 19th Century Brazil, it was spelled "Cotegipe". Taking a look at Wikipedia written in Portuguese, I found out that the name has been long corrected to "Cotejipe". Brazil for example, was written "Brazil" (as in English), but since the beginning of the 20th Century it has changed to "Brasil" (same spelling, different ortography). --Lecen (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend to revert Cotejipe. I was trying to revert a piece of vandalism in the article next to it in my watchlist, and I hit the wrong link. I need caffeine! • Astynax ^talk 18:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to reduce the size of the Lead section to fit the recommended MOS limit of 3-4 paragraphs. I have gone over about half of the article for consistency, and will try to finish it tonight. • Astynax ^talk 08:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a little bit of information into Carneiro Leão's article. Could you correct or improve it? Also, there a few issues related to prose raised by the reviewer which I thought you could handle better than I. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited the prose points which the reviewer mentioned early this morning here and in the following few edits. I do not know if s/he looked at all of them, but I used the suggestions which were made. Since the reviewer supports giving the article FA status, I don't think we need to worry any further about those comments, although good suggestions should always be put into the article. Now we have to wait for a few more people to review, and it will be done. FA takes more time than GA because several editors must approve that it complies with the FA criteria. I am now cleaning up the references on the Platine War article, but I intend look at your latest edits shortly. • Astynax ^talk 00:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a change to the part about the exceptionalist viewpoint of the Conservatives. If it isn't accurate, it is OK to change it. • Astynax ^talk 07:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Robinson's Arch GA

Thanks, Astynax. Poliocretes (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral

Astynax, could you improve for me the article Pedro Álvares Cabral? It is about the Portuguese navigator who discovered Brazil in 1500 (I wanted to take a small vacation from articles related to Brazilian imperial history and this one is also much more smaller). In case you do it, please ignore sub-sections "Island of the True Cross" and "India" - I haven't worked at them yet. You'll notice that are plenty of "unknown" or "not known for sure" or similar. Little information about him has survived and historians almost always disagree over his life. I'd like you to change the "unknowns" for similar words when possible. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try and look later tonight. • Astynax ^talk 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Did you check the contributions log on both users that complained about the name "Platine War"? Notice that both only worked on two articles: the Platine War and List of wars involving Argentina. I wouldn't be surprise if they are in fact MBelgrano (the Argentine editor who wanted to portray Rosas as peace and democracy loving man). What I consider quite interesting is that he claimed that since 4,000 Brazilians were part of an Army with 22,000 Argentines, Brazil's involvement in the conflict could be ignored. In the War of the Triple Alliance, Brazil had a 50,000 Army in the conflict while Argetina had 4,000. No Brazilian editor (nor historian) ever downsized Argentine participation. Anyway, this is just chitchat. Until later, my friend. --Lecen (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an end to Featured nomination? Some editors appears and complain about something and then they disappear. --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does happen. And sometimes their advice and edits conflict with each other. The process ends when one of the 3 people who moderate the process decides that there is a consensus that it satisfies the FA criteria (those are Raul654, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs). When someone comes in, as happened last week, and says that the article needs yet another editor to go through and copy edit (even though this has been done several times already by uninvolved editors), it probably looks to the directors like there is no consensus. So we just continue to tweak the article or explain when they find something which bothers them, or wait for them to make edits when they say they will do them. Sometimes their edits are good, sometimes their edits and suggestions raise more questions. It can be messy and frustrating, but I can only advise to be patient. • Astynax ^talk 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Made a few edits at Cabral and added "Arrival in a new land" and "Intentional discovery hypotesis" sections. Could you take a look in it? I aldo added more info to other sections you've worked on, sou it would be a good idea to look at them too. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have some time to look through it during the next 2 days. Congrats on Paraná! • Astynax ^talk 09:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Done with Island of the True Cross section. I'm tired, wow! --Lecen (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it later tonight. The illustrations are great! • Astynax ^talk 08:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "On 26 April, as more and more curious and friendly natives appeared, Cabral ordered his men to build an altar inland where a Christian mass—the first celebrated in the land that would later become known as Brazil. He, along with the ships' crews, participated". Is that correct? Shouldn't be something connected to "where a Christian mass"?

I didn't understand exactly what the reviewer of Pedro II's article meant. I believe he said that he WON'T review it, all he did was to add the quality requirements. And that's is not good, anyone who sees the article on the good article nomination list will believe that someone is actually reviewing it, when it isn't. --Lecen (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I didn't complete the phrase. I've changed it now. It looks to me that the reviewer is saying that he may ask someone else to complete the review, but will finish it later if there is no one else who will do it. The reviews in many categories have been very slow during the past month, and hopefully there will be people coming back from vacations who will soon speed things. • Astynax ^talk 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I invited some reviewers who I believed would be interest on taking a look at Pedro II of Brazil. Some accepted. Also, I've finished "Tragedy in Africa" and "Massacre in Calicut" sections in Cabral's article. --Lecen (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try and look at the new sections during the next few days. I should work on the footnotes and references at the same time. It is looking good. • Astynax ^talk 06:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Diogo Dias' ship became separated of the other 6 ships. They would meet again more than a year later. The way you wrote made it look like all 7 ships sailed together to India. Only 6 did that. The last remaining one (led by Diogo Dias) went to the Red Sea and then returned to Europe. That is explained later in the article. --Lecen (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am still working on it, so I can make it clearer. • Astynax ^talk 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is very good! I will finish the last remaining section and expand the section a little bit and we'll be over with this one! P.S.: That reviewer Fvasconcelos "suggested" that I should change the main picture of Pedro II's article. I considered that for awhile and did it. Unfortunately, the photomontage, no matter how much I tried, wasn't that good. And I, excuse me if you believe that I might be mistaken, thought that Pedro II would prefer to be remembered in his civilian clothes and as a "normal" person than in some elaborate uniform he never enjoyed. If you believe I did it wrong, please tell me. If not, I'd like to ask you to change the "alternative text" in those pictures I've changed (I also added another one of him younger that I believe it is better). --Lecen (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

All done there! The article looks very, very good. Once you've finished correcting it, feel free to make it a good article nominee. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! I will go through it tonight if I have some uninterrupted time. • Astynax ^talk 17:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind if I barge in, GAN is usually backlogged, so it is entirely possible that the article would have to wait a bit for a review - the article reads pretty well IMO, it wouldn't hurt if you took it straight to FAC, IMO. Connormah (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edis Connormah. So far, the GAN process has turned up some fairly good suggestions and helped identify some errors. I am not against going straight to FAC, but I think first taking a few days to go over the article with what we have learned from other FACs would be best before doing that. I'm not sure what is Lecen's preference. • Astynax ^talk 08:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I believe we both are making articles better than the ones found in the good category. I don't think it would harm nominating it to featured. But I will follow your lead. Whatever you think it's better, I'll support. --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to go over the entire article one more time before listing. I won't be able to do that before the end of the week, however. The FAC list is also longer than it has been in several months, and I think it would be best to take care of as many issues as can be identified before listing it so that the comment list doesn't get unnecessarily long. • Astynax ^talk 20:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then! I will work on other articles in the mean time. --Lecen (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my friend! I'd like to warn you that you've made a small mistake in Cabral's article. In "Return to Europe" section, the correct is that one of the ships ran aground near Island of Mozambique. Then, the surviving ships anchored in the Island of Mozambique. The way you wrote in the article looks like they anchored near the island, when in fact they anchored IN the island. Also, it looks like the ship was lost after they anchored when it happened BEFORE that. As I said before: the ship was lost somewhere near the island and then the fleet anchored in it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have changed it so that it is clearer that the ship sank before reaching the Island of Mozambique. I had 2 questions that might affect the article...

1. Were Cabral's last 2 daughters his own from another marriage or from a mistress? Or were they his wife's from an earlier marriage? It doesn't have to go into the article now, but someone might ask during the review.
2. Are the 2 External Links at the bottom of the article necessary? Some reviewers don't like external links, so they can be removed if they aren't important.

I want to look at it again tomorrow, and then I think it can be nominated, with us as co-nominators. • Astynax ^talk 08:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you may remove the external links. They were there before you and I started to write the article. All children were from his marriage. What happened was that one source only mentioned the first four children and another mentioned the last two daughters. You may simply add them all together. The sources on him are very contradictory. I saw some books stating that he was the second eldest male and others saying that he was the third (which is why I simply put him as one of several children). The only thing I could do was to follow the majority of the sources. Are going to nominate it to good or featured status? I believe we should go directly to featured. Our articles are getting better and better as time passes. We should have done that with the Viscount of Rio Branco and Pedro II's articles but now it is better to wait their nominations as good articles. --Lecen (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for the explanation. I think it is ready for FAC, although having several editors go through the article can be more frustrating than the single-editor review for GA. I will nominate as a FAC shortly. However, I am glad that Pedro II is in GAR because it is so long that it will be good to have the GA first. The reviewer who is looking at it is very experienced, and we will probably get some good suggestions and corrections from the review. • Astynax ^talk 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking of that, I believe we should award him with a banner after he is finished with the review. Wanting or not, doing it takes time and requires patience and I believe he should earn it. What do you think? --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: What is the deal with "co-nominator"? Does it changes anything? Or is just a way of knowing tht more than one editor contributed in an article? --Lecen (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The banner may be a good idea if you can find an appropriate banner. The nomination for Cabral is now active. If you haven't already, you should add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro Álvares Cabral/archive1 to your watchlist. I am not certain of the reason for "co-nominator". The only thing I know it does is that it allows the nominators to have 2 articles undergoing review at the same time. Otherwise, a single nominator can only have 1 article on the FAC list. I suppose it might also be useful to have the second nominator in case one of the nominators becomes unavailable during the process. • Astynax ^talk 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a footnote that tells how Cabral's name was spelled during his lifetime. It is footnote "B". Don't you think it would be more appropriate to have it in the lead, just next to Cabral's name written in bold? --Lecen (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The alternate spellings are also shown in the infobox and also in the biography persondata, so it should not be necessary and more names may make the first sentence even more awkward to read. If one of the reviewers thinks the alternate spellings need to be repeated in the lead section then we can add them at that time. • Astynax ^talk 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you got it wrong. I am not suggesting that we should add all the names into the main text. What I suggested was to move the footnote from one place to the other. --Lecen (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved it up into the infobox where the other spellings are listed. Because the Lead section is meant to be a summary of the information which follows, some reviewers do not like footnotes in the lead (although it isn't forbidden to have them). • Astynax ^talk 09:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Primeiras and Segundas Archipelago

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Princess_Maria_Amélia_of_Brazil/archive1

I've had a chance to read over the discussion. I'm striking my support for the moment while we clear up this last point; I asked a question in my section. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lecen has asked that the FAC be withdrawn here. If you agree, I'll withdraw it. Or, you may want to read the discussion on my talk page and see if we can negotiate our way through this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, I tried hard to deal with the matter but I'm tired and I have no will to continue with it. For some reason Maria Amélia is the only royal who can not have her given name translated to English and Dank insists on giving undue weight to DrKiernan's opinion. I didn't know that DrKiernan have the power of life and death over aticles in Wikipedia. If he says "no" it's enough to an article to fail even though several other reviwers so no issue and gave their supports. I'm not able to deal with these "sacred cow" editors and they remember me of the Essjay controversy. He went as far as to try hard to have me blocked so that he could have the article the way he wants. Enough and enough. I'll leave this one up to you. If you want to reason with them or if you want to yield to DrKiernan's demands feel free to do it. I won't object and I have 100% faith on you. --Lecen (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't available yesterday. I have no problem with withdrawing at this time. We can come back to it later when we can look at it with fresh eyes. This has gone on for much longer than I had thought and I am dealing with off-Wikipedia matters that demand my attention. The FAC has led to changes which are truly improvements, and others which are less improvements than personal preferences and opinions. I do not consider the level of criticism and difference over interpretation of policy as worthy of denying FA status, but this type of dispute is too frustrating to argue at the present time. Policies are good, but there are gray areas and wiggle room. • Astynax ^talk 08:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote about it in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#My thoughts on the FAC process. You don't need to make any comment, I just thought you should know. Nonetheless, I'd like to thank you for everything you did. If it wasn't for you, none of those articles would have become featured. You did an explendid work and I really appreciate all you did. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 14, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 14, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral (c. 1467-c. 1520) was a Portuguese noble, military commander, navigator and explorer regarded as the discoverer of Brazil. Cabral conducted the first substantial exploration of the northeast coast of South America and claimed it for Portugal. He was appointed to head an expedition to India in 1500, following Vasco da Gama's newly opened route around Africa. His fleet of 13 ships sailed far into the western Atlantic Ocean, perhaps intentionally, where he made landfall on what he initially assumed to be a large island. As the new land was within the Portuguese sphere according to the Treaty of Tordesillas, Cabral claimed it for the Portuguese Crown. He explored the coast, realizing that the large land mass was likely a continent, and dispatched a ship to notify King Manuel I of the new territory. The continent was South America, and the land he had claimed for Portugal later came to be known as Brazil. Cabral was later passed over, possibly as a result of a quarrel with Manuel I, when a new fleet was assembled to establish a more robust presence in India. Having lost favor with the King, he retired to a private life of which few records survive. His accomplishments slipped into obscurity for more than 300 years. Historians have long argued whether Cabral was Brazil's discoverer, and whether the discovery was accidental or intentional. Nevertheless, although he was overshadowed by contemporary explorers, Cabral today is regarded as a major figure of the Age of Discovery. (more...)