" After Brazilian independence in 1822, Inhaúma enlisted to serve in the armada (navy) of Brazil." Is it right, in this context, to refer to him as "Inhaúma", when he did not acquire this title until 1867? The same applies to other statements in the lead. I note that in the article itself you call him "Joaquim Inácio" until his title is conferred.
"enlisted to serve..." The words "to serve" are redundant.
"during the latter half of the 1820s, he engaged in subduing secessionist rebellions". As worded, this suggests a major role which, in view of his youth, is unlikely. Suggest you soften to "participated in the subduing of..." or similar
"during that troubled period". In the interests of neutrality I would remove "troubled".
"He first saw action in the Sabinada between 1837 and 1838..." This will confuse readers, who have just been told he put down rebellions in the late 1820s, which is presumably where he first saw action.
"a couple years" is colloquial American English. It is not encyclopedic.
I am somewhat puzzled by the fourth paragraph, which summarises Inhaúma as hesitant, procrastinating, mentally exhausted and diseased, yet then says he is regarded as among the greatest Brazilian navy officers. Perhaps, rather than making so definitive a statement ("Inhaúma's leadership was encumbered by his hesitating and procrastinating behavior") you should qualify this, e.g. "some historians believe that..." etc.
That's all I have time for at the moment. Will return if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Brian. It's good to see you. Now let's take a look at your comment:
"during the latter half of the 1820s, he engaged in subduing secessionist rebellions". Fixed as per your suggestion.
"during that troubled period". It was a troubled time the regency in the 1830s. It was regarded as such by contemporaries and historians. Don't worry, it isn't a controversial issue. In fact, nothing in the article or related to it it's controversial.
"He first saw action in the Sabinada between 1837 and 1838..." Fixed that by removing "first".
"a couple years" Changed for "two".
"I am somewhat puzzled by the fourth paragraph, which summarises Inhaúma as hesitant..." Merely because he was a brave officer and regarded by a few historians as one of the greatest in Brazilian history doesn't mean that he was devoid of flaws, right? And that is also uncontroversial. Even his superior, the Duke of Caxias complained about his behavior.
I hope you'll find time to take a look at the rest of the article. Thanks for your imput, --Lecen (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy with these responses. As I say, I'll try to find time for a more detailed look. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment (drive-by) - Inline source "Ouro Preto (1894)" lacks a full bibliographic entry in "References". GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, GermanJoe. I added the missing book. --Lecen (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
"30 July 1808, his mother claimed that the correct birthdate was the following day, on 1 August.": Wasn't that two days later? - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Now there is someone who is always a pleasure to see. Good to have you around, Dank. And yes, you are correct. I had forgotten that July has 31 days. --Lecen (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Good to see you too, Lecen. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The Lacombe book does have an OCLC, which is 30701799 (source is here). Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Support with the disclaimer that I have worked with Lecen before. The sourcing is typically top-notch, and if Dank's copyedited it, I am satisfied with the prose. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Image check - all OK, some more tweaks needed (cleaned up a few summaries):
One repeating problem is the lack of original publication info. I realize, it's probably difficult or impossible to find all details, but a bit more information would help to strengthen the PD-1923 license: are you sure, those images were published pre-1923? Where would such images usually be published, in Brazilian newspapers or books? Even if the original source is lost, it would help to explain, why we believe it's pre-1923. (see additional details below)
Reading the article as a complete novice, the portrait captions look a bit repetitive. Just "name, aged, year" for every portrait may be encyclopedic, but doesn't draw the reader into the article. Any more brief details to add to the captions, atleast for a few of them?GermanJoe (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Joe, it's good to see you. The reason to why I used "PD-100" was because I compared with the lifetime of contemporary Brazilian photographers: Revert Henrique Klumb (183? — c. 1886), Alberto Henschel (1827-1882), Augusto Stahl (1828-1877), etc... all active in the 1860s. Marc Ferrez (1843-1923), who was active in the 1880s lived until 1923. I can hardly believe that the photographer who took those photos lived until the 1890s, even less the 1910s. In the specific case of the Viscount of Inhaúma, photographs and lithographys portraying him became common in the 1860s until his death in 1869 after he became Minister of Navy and commanded the Brazilian navy in the Paraguayan War (1864-70). Photos were sold nationwide (just like in the U.S. with Grant and Lee, for example), litographs were published in newspapers, etc... There are no known portraits of Inhaúma after his death. I added a few words to a couple of captions. I'm out of ideas here. If you have any suggestions I'd appreciate. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional background information. All images should be OK as PD then, based on the available context. A bit of a grey area, but absent time travelling to check this in person the reasoning is good enough for me ;). GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for going through the article. I believe the capitalization of the titles follows WP:JOBTITLES (i.e., they are capitalized only when used in the place of a proper name or immediately before a proper name). I've also inserted the wikilinks. Lecen is looking over the sources to see if they give explanations of the rank and ship sinkings and will respond here. • Astynaxtalk 09:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
That works for the title, but not the ministry itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I missed that one, and it is now corrected. • Astynaxtalk 18:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Sturmvogel 66. I'm glad to see you here. Let's take a look at your questions:
Neither Barros (1870) nor Sisson (1999) explain why the Duquesa de Goiás sank in 1827. All they say was that he was the last officer to leave the doomed vessel and how noble and brave he was for acting like that. I opted not to mention the "noble" and "brave" parts or we would have written an hagiography, not a biographical article. Frota (2008), however, gives the reason to the sinking: when the ship entered the channel of the Río Negro (Argentina), it made a wrong maneuver, colliding in a bank and water started plumbing in (p.17). Since was neither the commander of the ship, nor its pilot, but merely a member of the crew, I thought it wouldn't be worth the mention since it could look like we were blamming him. Now for the Jaguaripe, the ship lost in 1833: Barros (1870) does not give an explanation to why it sank, but he mentions that the Jaguaripe was an "old schooner of awful construction" (that is, that it had serious flaws in her construction). Frota (1008) does not tell how the ship went down. Sisson (1999) also said that it was old and badly built. He does, however, explain why the ship sank: an increasingly strong wind forced the ship aground in the Brazilian litoral.
OK, good enough for Duquesa de Goias since he was just a passenger. But you should describe how Jaguaripe was lost in a little more detail since he was involved. Ships' bottoms do occasionally rot and allow the ship to sink, q.v. CSS North Carolina, but that's not very common.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the mate doubt: he was the "oficial imediato" of the Pará and Grenfell. According to the Wikipedia in Portuguese, the name given in English is "chief officer" and "first mate". In the Wikipedia in English, the names given in Chief mate are: "Chief mate", "Chief Officer", "First Officer" and "First Mate".
First mate is a title that applies to civilian ships, not military ones. The best translation of the Portuguese would be First Officer or First Lieutenant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I hope that helps. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed all remaining issues. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
In the lead I think we could afford to lose "but died before taking office" or possibly change it to "but never assumed office". Reasoning is that when completing the third of what have essentially been three chronological paragraphs with his death, I expected the last to be a general summing up, legacy, etc, but in fact we had more chronological career summation still to go, and it kind of jarred for me. Not a big deal, just something to consider. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, Ian, I'm not entirely happy with this article. Although he was one of the most important navy officers in Brazilian imperial history, there is little information available about him. As you can see in he bibliography, I had to use a biography published in 1870! What bothers me the most in the article, however, is the legacy section. It's one paragraph long only! Other similar articles (Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and [[Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre], for example) reveal far more of how posterity saw others. What I hope is that I find either a book that I may have missed that gives a better overview of Inhaúma's legacy or that one is published in the next few years. There is an alarming lack of interest in Brazil (my country) regarding military affairs. Unlike other nations such as the USA and the UK, we don't have many books about our military history. If four or five admirals and generals from the imperial era had biographies published in the past 100 years that's a lot. History books about that period focus far more on society and culture, a little on politics (except for the emperors) and almost nothing on warfare. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Careful, Lecen, if you go much further it'll sound like you're opposing your own nom, which would be a first in my experience... ;-) Seriously though, aside from the support from the reviewers, there appears to me to be quite sufficient detail for a FAC, and if the legacy section is not as full as you'd like it be, you can only go by what sources are available. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)