Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro I 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 Ian Rose 13:54, 17 August 2012 [1].

---

Pedro I of Brazil

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

• Featured article candidates/Pedro I of Brazil/archive1

• Featured article review/Pedro I of Brazil/archive1

Nominator(s): • Astynax ^talk 09:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC), Lecen (talk) and DrKiernan (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article at the end of the process of overhauling the article, including providing more in-depth coverage and more complete references. Pedro I was the prime mover in realizing Brazil's independence, and also a significant figure in Portuguese history. • Astynax ^talk 09:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• I'm really enjoying the article. FWIW, I'm fine with "who they only saw" instead of "whom", which is slowly dying even in formal prose.
• I take it from "womaniser" and "rumours" (and from your previous articles) that this is BritEng. "north-east" is preferred in BritEng, although I think there are allowances for local variation.
  • Okay, I see the article is being converted to AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• I got a note on my talk page about one change; what did the sources say, exactly, about his fluency in English, particularly at an early age? - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "The English, he learned with Reverend William Paul Tilbury, chapelain of the Military Division of the Police Imperial Guard, and [Pedro I] caused admiration in the widow Graham, to whom he cited several English authors and Scottish novelists" and "He knows Latin and French, translates from English and understands German 'his poor Leopoldina' taught him". This is what the books says. I'll leave the other questions to Astynax, who will be far more able to answer them than I. --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks much. I'm not comfortable concluding that he could write or speak English (at least, not in the sense that English-speakers usually mean by that), only that he could translate from English. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
      • When the author said he could translate, it meant that he could read in English and write in Portuguese, not that he could hear in ENglish and speak in Portuguese. If that was the case he would have used the word "entendia" (understood), which he used for German. In Neill Macaulay's book it says in Pedro's childhood: "Under Rademaker's tutelage he learned to speak passable French and to read English, and was intorduced to some of the important literary and philosophical works in those languages". --Lecen (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, in careful writing, that's what "translate" means in English too; "interpret" is used to mean listening and speaking. I think "translate" is the right word here.
• "The 19-year-old prince was handsome, a little above average in height, had bright dark eyes and dark brown hair.": Nicely done, except watch the parallellism. Take your pick: "The 19-year-old prince was handsome and a little above average in height, and had bright dark eyes and dark brown hair.", or: "The 19-year-old prince was handsome and a little above average in height, with bright dark eyes and dark brown hair." - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• "his daily attire consisted solely of white cotton trousers with a striped, cotton-brimmed straw hat on his head": Just checking ... he wore nothing but pants and a hat?
  • Good catch. The correct is "white cotton trousers, striped cotton jacket and a broad-brimmed straw hat". It must have been lost somewhere during previous copyediting. I added it back. --Lecen (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• "northeastern": same as above. Btw, I just noticed that in Cambridge Dictionaries, unlike in SOED and Oxford Dictionaries, northeast is given rather than north-east, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Portugal signed a highly unfavorable treaty with Brazil": That means the treaty was unfavorable for Portugal, which probably isn't what you meant. One option is to say just "a treaty", since the provisions are covered in the next sentence.
• "Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations by the signing of another treaty in which its favorable commercial rights were renewed and a convention in which Brazil was compelled to abolish slave trade with Africa within four years.": I'm not sure which of those words "a convention" is the object of; if this is saying that prohibiting Brazil's slave trade was a gift to England, that doesn't sound right.
• "toward": You have two of these, one "afterward", and no cases of words ending in -wards; that's okay since you're consistent, just be aware that BritEng tends to prefer -wards in directional words, while AmEng has a slight preference for -ward. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• "The Emperor's visit to Rio Grande do Sul was brief, and he was already on his way back to Rio de Janeiro when he was told that Maria Leopoldina had died following a miscarriage. Unfounded rumours soon spread through the Brazilian capital that purported that she had died after being physically assaulted by Pedro I." Keeping things chronological is generally a good thing, but several factors argue in favor of moving these two sentences to the beginning of the next subsection (and perhaps rewriting to fit). They're the only two sentences on that subject in that subsection, they fit with the theme of the next subsection, and (in their current position) they require something like what you've done, adding to that subsection title the word "widowhood", which is a problematic word. Most readers will assume it means that someone became a widow; they won't find out till the last paragraph that Pedro I became a widower, which is a possible but less common meaning of the word. The uncommon and unwieldy "widowerhood" wouldn't fix things. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm against this last suggestion because we're a following the general division made by Pedro I's biographers of his life. Also, it would make the next subsection unnecessarily large and there is no basis to the theory that "someone" would become a widowhood other than him. The article is about him, the sections are named after special moments on his life. Who else would the average reader think that became a widow? Leopoldina? Domitila? These two are the only charactes mentioned in these subsections other than Pedro. Sorry, but the last suggestion is one I can't agree with. --Lecen (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think I understand both Dank's and Lecen's concern with this passage. The event is definitely connected with the war, but the chronology suffers in the following section because Domitila had already established her hold over Pedro I before Maria Leopoldina's death. I have moved the 2 sentences but added a few words to connect the visit to the wartime trip to Rio Grande do Sul. The death of Maria Leopoldina fits awkwardly into a chronological account no matter in which section it appears, however. If Lecen would like to have it in the "War" section, then perhaps there is a way to do that while making the chronology of the "Second Marriage" section clearer. I have made changes based on Dank's other suggestions. • Astynax ^talk 22:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) Engaging prose. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Several images are sourced to books but lack page numbers
• File:Emperor_Dom_Pedro_I_1822.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Pedro_I_Imperador_1823.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:CoA_Empire_of_Brazil_(1847-1889).svg needs US PD tag and more specific source
• File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Kingdom_of_Portugal_(1640-1910).png: what source was used to create this image?
• File:Signature_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.png needs US PD tag
• File:Signature_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Signed_initials_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Signed_initials_of_Pedro_I_of_Brazil.png needs US PD tag
• File:Pedro_II_of_Brazil_by_Insley_Pacheco_1865b.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Duchess_of_Goiás_1843b.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Countess_of_Iguaçu_1852b.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that now we have to tell from what page did we scan the picture. Also, if yo'ure talking about this tag, I'm sorry, but I can't add it. The books were not published before 1923. Lastly, isn't this the Wikipedia in English? Or is the U.S. Wikipedia? You could argue that Wikipedia servers are located in the United States but then that would mean that everys single picture uploaded on Commons would need a US-tag which is not what happens. --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily that tag, but any tag that indicates the copyright status of the image in the US - per WP:IUP: "Wikipedia pages, including non-English language pages, are hosted on a server in the United States, so U.S. law governs whether a Wikipedia image is in the public domain". Commons requires media to be free in both the US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And the tags being used right now are fine where? Bangladesh? Ethiopia? Why does Commons uses "PD-old" as its main tag if it's not the correct one? And when did rules changed since my last FAC? The tags are fine, all works (except for the two photos used in Legacy section and the abdication painting made iaround 1890) were painted or drawn in Pedro I's lifetime and are all in public domain. --Lecen (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You would have to ask that at Commons, but DrKiernan has added tags that hopefully resolve this problem (I haven't yet checked). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources and custom-made tags added. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, looks good now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: _{Supported below} I helped copyedit the first six or so sections a few weeks ago, I don't recall seeing anything of issue there. I'll try to review the rest of the article this weekend. A few small comments thus far:
• "Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations" Worse for whom?
• "Aware that a reunion of Brazil and Portugal would be unacceptable to the Brazilians and to the Portuguese" Is there a good way to get around the repetition of the countries here?
• Some of the text in "Endless crises" seems a bit apologetic on Pedro's behalf, might want to attribute some of it to historians or commentators.
• Small issue, but several categories are redlinks at the moment. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed "...unacceptable to the Brazilians and to the Portuguese" to "...unacceptable to the people of both nations". Is it better? About "Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations": I thought it was obvious. It was bad for Brazil. The entire paragraph is devoted to show how Brazil was damaged in the aftermath of its independence. And as far as I know there is no bad "reward", so it couldn't be bad for Britain. I might add "Even worse for Brazil..." if you believe it's trully needed. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I see your point, what about trying to merge the last two sentences of the paragraph, "Even worse for Brazil's economic interests..."? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly what do you regard as apologetic in the text? --Lecen (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, the wording of "Regardless of Pedro I's failures as a ruler, he always respected the Constitution" and then the list that follows brought that to mind. Something like, "Historians have noted that..." might work better. Also, in "None of these figures exhibited interest in such issues, and whatever interests they may have shared, there was no palace cabal plotting to abrogate the Constitution or to bring Brazil back under Portugal's control." I'd prefer something like "there is no evidence that..." (Just my opinion, if no one else agrees I'll drop it.) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • There is an entire section in the article ("Crises within and whithout") that deals with Dom Pedro I's several errors (many of them quite awful). This section is quite long and it's divided in three subsections, two of them ("Portuguese dynastic affair" and "War and widowhood") deal directly with his many misdeeds. I couldn't write solely what he did wrong, but also what he did right. That's where the two last paragraphs of "Endless crises" enter. From this point of view, another person might say that two subsections (one with three paragraphs and the other with four) telling what he did of bad and only two paragraphs saying what he did of good might be unfair to him. If I add "some historians said that he respected the Constitution" I would have to add that "some historians said that he signed a peace treaty with Portugal that harmed Brazilian interests" or "some historians said that he cheated on his wife and made her life miserable" or "some historians said that he failed to notice that his lover was corrupt", etc, etc... Would that improve the article? If I'm not being clear enough, please let me know. P.S.: I removed "always" in "Regardless of Pedro I's failures as a ruler, he always respected the Constitution". --Lecen (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Hmm, Ok, I'll table this for now and re-read it along with your comments after I finish making my way through. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Small quibble, but refs should be in ascending numerical order (i.e. ".[219][220][188]" should be ".[188][219][220]")
• "Surprisingly, he had no more affairs and remained faithful to his spouse" I'm not sure about the use of "surprisingly here, perhaps "Uncharacteristically" would be better?
• " A large crowd, incited by the radicals, gathered on the afternoon of 6 April and demanded the immediate restoration of the fallen cabinet." Where did the crowd gather? It's not of crucial importance but might be nice to note.
• "Although the title should have belonged to Maria II's heir, which he certainly was not, his claim was met with general recognition" I think you could probably do away with the parenthetical comment here.
• I'd consider using a block quote in the War of restoration and Legacy sections.
• "Pedro sailed to the Atlantic archipelago of the Azores, the only Portuguese territory that had remained loyal to his daughter. After a few months of final preparations he embarked for mainland Portugal, entering the city of Porto unopposed on 9 July." Just a thought, but you might consider adding a map around here. Also, this probably doesn't need to be in the article, but I'm curious why the Azores stayed loyal. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 1) Changed "surprisingly" for "Uncharacteristically". 2) The crowd gathered in the Praça da Aclamação (Acclamation square) in Rio de Janeiro downtown. I added the latter. 3) This small bit of information about the Duke of Braganza is needed because as you can see in "Titles and honors" section ("Nobility" subsection to be more precise) it says that he had the title of Duke of Braganza when he was the heir to Portugal. "Did he kept the title even when he became King?" or "Did he usurped the title?" will come to the mind of the average reader. Try to imagine if Edward VIII of Great Britan had claimed the title of "Prince of Wales" after he abdicated. 4) Is the block quote really needed? I'd consider weird seeing "John of Doe said:" followed by a block, then "Steve of Whatever said:" also followed by a block. But this is just for me a matter of personal taste, of course. If you believe we really need to add the block quotes, we'll do it. 5) Maps should be used in the appropriate article: Liberal Wars. Or else, I would need to add maps for the War of Brazilian Independence and the Cisplatine War (remember that Dom Pedro travelled a lot during both conflicts). I do have plans to improve "Liberal Wars" so all that will be needed is a click in the near future. Is that okay to you? Also, when Dom Miguel usurped the crown in 1828, the Portuguese liberals attempted to counter-attack, but were easily defeated. Some went to exile in Great Britain and others kept a hold in Azores, which Miguel was never able to conquer (he never actually tried). --Lecen (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • P.S.: Astynax fixed the problem with the refs. --Lecen (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Alright, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations above. I was impressed by the article, a very thorough, well written collaboration, good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments I am reviewing the article today, this may be the best article regarding Brazil and Portugal so far, excellent work. I have one recommendation for the Independence or Death section. It would be great to clearly mention that on September 7 by the Ipiranga river in the city of São Paulo he declared Independence, he stayed in São Paulo after this episode and was informally proclaimed “King of Brazil” by the local leaders in the city theatre, an episode that may be worth mentioning as he was very popular among the ruling class and gave an emotional speech at the same night. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is already over 100KB. This is why a lot of important stuff were not mentioned, such as his notorious fight with the Marquis of Barbacena in 1829, his affair with Domitila's sister, etc, etc... I will, however, talk about his acclamation as "King" of Brazil in São Paulo, and other details, such as the Bernada, in the most appropriate article: Independence of Brazil. After I'm done with the Count of Porto Alegre, the Brazilian independence will be my next project. --Lecen (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Dom Pedro had a very tumultuous life. Your proposal to add it to the Brazilian Independence article is reasonable. Paulista01 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I am done with my review, I found no problems with the sources and the historical information regarding Dom Pedro I. Thanks Astynax, Lecen and DrKiernan Paulista01 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks much Paulista. FAC requires occasional "spot checks" of some of an article's sources, to make sure the text reflects the sources without copying them word-for-word; are you saying that you've looked at several references, and the text is faithful to those sources? - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello Dank. Yes, I checked some sources in Portuguese and English. I didn't check all of them, since I don't have access to every book mentioned in the article. Paulista01 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Spot-checks: Note to delegates: I have no information other than the information just above ... hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• Dan, re. spotchecks, given Paulista's endorsement plus the fact that all three nominators have had acceptably clean FAC spotchecks in the past year, I'm satisfied on this count.
• First sentence: Dom Pedro I (English: Peter I; 12 October 1798 – 24 September 1834), nicknamed "the Liberator", was the founder and first ruler of the Empire of Brazil. As King Dom Pedro IV, he reigned briefly over Portugal, where he also became known as "the Liberator" as well as "the Soldier King". -- I think "also" and "as well" in the same sentence is a bit much. I gather what we're saying is that he was known in both Brazil and Portugal as "the Liberator", and in Portugal alone as "the Soldier King". Since "the Liberator" is being applied up front and generally, I think we could simplify by recasting as: Dom Pedro I (English: Peter I; 12 October 1798 – 24 September 1834), nicknamed "the Liberator", was the founder and first ruler of the Empire of Brazil. As King Dom Pedro IV, he reigned briefly over Portugal, where he also became known as "the Soldier King".
• Dr K. will recall from a recent FAC that I'd expect an Ancestors table to have its content cited like any other part of the article; can we do so in this case as well, seeing as not all those in that section appear to be discussed/sourced in the main body? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Re: First sentence: There is a distinction that the first 2 sentences, however awkwardly, was trying to preserve, i.e., that Pedro I/IV was hailed as "the Liberator" on 2 occasions and for different reasons: the first time as liberator of Brazil and founder of its independence, and the second time as the liberator of Portugal from the reactionary usurper Miguel I. I have changed the second sentence slightly to read: "As King Dom Pedro IV, he later reigned briefly over Portugal, where he again was accorded the epithet 'the Liberator' and was also known as 'the Soldier King'." Does that address your concern? • Astynax ^talk 06:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I can live with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Astynax is correct. He became known (after death) as "the Liberator" in both countries for different reasons. DrKiernan added references to his ancestors as you requested, Ian Rose. --Lecen (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
        • That'll do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My thanks to all who have taken the time to review, suggest, and in some cases copy edit. Your improvements are appreciated. • Astynax ^talk 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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