Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2010: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 6
promote 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOC limit}}
{{TOC limit}}
== September 2010 ==
== September 2010 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fridtjof Nansen/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pig-faced women/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pig-faced women/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive3}}

Revision as of 18:33, 4 September 2010

September 2010

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 SandyGeorgia 18:33, 4 September 2010 [1].

Fridtjof Nansen

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a polar saga: Nansen was one of the most significant European figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Sportsman, scientist, explorer, diplomat, statesman, Nobel laureate – a giant of his times, a story well worth the telling. I have had some useful assistance with the article from a couple of Norwegian editors, Ruhrfisch has provided two lovely maps, Ealdgyth has photographed Fram, Elcobbola has checked out the pics. Others have given generous help at the peer review, so all in all this is a pretty good team effort, and I'm proud to be the nominator. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; you may want to check out File:EvaNansenskiing.jpg, which I have added after the start of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No issues there. Эlcobbola talk 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I have added the second of Ruhrfisch's Oscar images, though it's not essential to the article and can be withdrawn if anyone thinks it intrusive. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - any chance that you could add pronunciation anywhere in the article? Nothing major, I won't oppose, but it may become useful to some - I, for one have no idea how to pronounce his first name. Connormah 21:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will need help on this, as I am unfamiliar with IPA. The English pronunciation of his first name - "Frit-yof" - is straightforward, but the Norwegian pronunciation may be different. I will pursue the issue on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ['frɪt.jɒf] (English) I think. Ucucha 12:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The problem is, the name in the first line of the article is "Fridtjof Wedel-Jarlsberg Nansen" which would give an extended IPA version which I think would disrupt the first line of the article. Any thoughts on that? Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just his common name (Fridtjof Nansen) would be okay - even just 'Fridtjof' would maybe be okay, but yeah, some outside thougts would be better to settle it. Connormah 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I read this through when it was at peer review, and found it very well-written, and an interesting read that held my attention to the end. I made some edits and suggestions earlier, and I'm happy to support. The only thing I would like to have seen is a longer discussion of his personal life, because it seems he was a bit of a womanizer, and this caused him problems of various kinds. It is touched on in the article, but I'd have liked to see a bit more. But this is just a preference issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support and for your earlier help. On the question of Nansen's womanising, I am a little reluctant to add more. There is no evidence that his major work was ever seriously affected or impeded by his infidelities, and emphasising the few details that are available might be thought to be trivialising, or sensation-seeking. Of his supposed paramours, only Kathleen Scott is notable in her own right, and I think it proper to mention this relationship as asserted by Huntford. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a fair number of comments at the peer review, which were satisfactorily addressed, I see no point in repeating them here. As usual, Brian has come up with a well written article, with this of particular importance due to Nansen's role both in Arctic exploration and international diplomacy. Deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support and kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes http://www.bivouac.com/default.asp a reliable source?
    • The Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia, whose website this is, is used merely to confirm that "Mount Nansen" in the Yukon exists. While extensive, the site is irritatingly anonymous, and for that reason I wouldn't use it for anything beyond simple confirmation of names. The site claims to have been operating for 15 years, and is mainly a subscription service, though basic information is given free. There are other online sources that confirm the existence of this Mount Nansen, if you think this source does not justify the use I have made of it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A plain map from Google would be fine, I'd think. Or some similar gazeteer. Anonymous doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hate Google maps; I can never find the url that takes me directly to the version of the map I want. I expect that's another example of things that I'm no good at. However, no matter; I have replaced the queried source with a map from the Government of Yukon which shows the location of the mountain, which is all I wanted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • For future reference, I take my URLs from the "Link" button at the top-right corner of the map's frame. Changes automatically depending on your amount of zoom, your location, and viewing mode (map, satellite, or Earth). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why just "Santa Barbara" when the other obscure American cities get state too?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was one of the peer reviewers and thought the article ready for FAC early on. Assuming that Elcobbola's image concerns will be addressed and likewise Ealdgyth's two concerns, I'm happy to support. One quibble: would it be possible to shrink File:Nansen-aged4.jpg by two or three lines? It displaces the "Early life" subhead on my computer screen. I see that you've already used the "upright" parameter. I think there's a way to shrink the image even more, but I don't know how it's done. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The markup is "upright=x", so it could be made smaller with something like "upright=0.7" or whatever other number would resolve the displacement. Эlcobbola talk 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elcobbola. Brian has solved the problem by combining two subsections, but the upright markup will come in handy in the future. Finetooth (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The trouble is that the section the image is in is so short that, with this image shape, you'd have to reduce to "upright= 0.3" to get it into the section without overlap. That makes the image unacceptably small. The solution I have adopted is to combine the two subsections "Ancestry" and "Early life" to form one undivided section. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and thanks, Finetooth, for your encoragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with comments:

  • Link Fram in the discussion of the vessel. The article on the expedition is linked, the page on the ship is not.
    • Linked
  • "Nansen had by now turned his back on polar exploration"-- this sounds like he rejected it (as opposed to just giving it up). Is that the intended meaning?
    • It's probably fairer to just say that he retired from polar exploration, and I have reworded accordingly.
  • The 2004 frigate was not the first ship of the Norwegian navy to be named for him. Fridtjof Nansen was a gunboat laid down in 1928 and commissioned in 1931. This vessel escaped the German occupation of Norway in May 1940 but was lost later that year off Jan Mayen.
    • Interesting; maybe that could be added to the frigate article, with appropriate sourcing.

Kablammo (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support for the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not a reliable source, I just found the Wikipedia article on the gunboat, HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen OPV. Perhaps the "otheruses" template at the top should be changed. Kablammo (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [4].

Pig-faced women

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... there is currently no Featured Article which includes the sentence "Once shaved, the drunken bear would be fitted with padded artificial breasts, and dressed in women's clothing and a wig", and I hope to rectify that situation.

This is the story of how garbled half-recollections of an obscure and long-forgotten morality tale ultimately led to thousands of people who should have known better becoming convinced that human-pig chimeras were roaming the streets of major European cities. Yes, it's all true. – iridescent 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief note: I'm sure ending on a pull quote probably breaks some part of the MOS, but I think it has much more impact to end on "as he did so, the figure slowly faded away and vanished", without in any way breaking the narrative or informativeness of the article. – iridescent 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe the article now meets the criteria; another interesting read on a, well, interesting issue. Ucucha 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "On being told by her husband that the choice was hers"—do you mean "When her husband told her that the choice was hers"?
  • The link to Volkskunde does not lead to a journal, but redirects to German folklore (the redirect is dubious; "volkskunde" means "ethnology" in Dutch and German)
  • Piping "Margaret of Henneberg" to House of Henneberg seems dubious, especially as the target doesn't mention the legend.
  • I was assuming that if I didn't, someone would just add it later, and the fictional character was presumably intended to represent a member of this family. If anyone has strong opinions, feel free to take the link out. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is at present a report,in London"—is the unspaced comma in the original? Also: "We ourselves, unwittingly put"; "in whon", "desparate"; a spaced question mark in the letter by "M. A."
  • Fixed. The spaced question mark is in the original, but I've removed it—I've tried to keep to original spelling in quotes, but I don't think that particular one has any advantage to being kept. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd fairly certain they were American black bears. Asian black bears are more aggressive, and would have been far scarcer than American black bears in England and Ireland in this period—there was (and still is) a fairly steady trade in bears from Canada to Britain for the fur trade. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the sources just say "black bear" or "bear", I think it's vanishingly unlikely anyone would have been importing Asian bears to England other than the occasional specimen for zoos. I can take out the link and just go with "bear", but I'd really rather keep the image; the similarity of an upright bear and a human is counter-intuitive, and the image makes it clearer. If it's kept, the U. americanus image appears to have come from here, according to its Commons page (you have to type "black bear" in the search box to bring it up). It's already used on the FL List of mammals of Florida as well as Bear itself, so I assume someone's checked out the legitimacy—it certainly appears to be a genuine federal government work. – iridescent 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this as a compromise? It doesn't really matter to the reader what kind of bear it was, and the caption hopefully makes it clear that the image is of a representative bear's posture, rather than that this particular bear was used? – iridescent 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks fine to me. Asian black bears were often used in entertainment, so I don't think it is very unlikely. As for the image, I noticed that link, but I don't think a link to a homepage suffices; you'll need a link to the actual image. (And I'm sure you know that an image having been around for a while and appearing in an odd FA or FL doesn't guarantee that it is in order.) Ucucha 17:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I think. I've never understood PD-gov, and what is and isn't covered; I assume Elcobbola or Jappalang will shout if it's not correct. We have surprisingly few pictures of bears standing upright. – iridescent 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this source (quoting The History of Doctor Steevens' Hospital, Dublin, 1720–1920 [1924] by T. Percy Kirkpatrick), which claims that the story of Steevens being pig-faced only gained currency after her death, contrary to our article's claim that it started during her lifetime. Ucucha 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly certain that will be wrong. It's well documented that Griselda took to sitting in public view to refute the "pig" rumour, and commissioned a portrait despite her reclusiveness, specifically for that reason. – iridescent 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet all those are from long after her own time; Kirkpatrick says though the story later became prevalent, there was no actual evidence that it existed during her lifetime, and none of those appear to give that evidence. (I can e-mail you the article, which in addition to the Irish text contains a number of long and interesting quotations on pig-faced people, if you wish.) Ucucha 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd say that with at least seven "began in her lifetime" sources (including two university presses plus Robert Chambers) and only one "began after her lifetime", we're into WP:VNT territory. It's not down to us to decide what's true, it's to report what other people have said. – iridescent 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of these are quite explicit that the rumor arose during her lifetime, and I would view Kirkpatrick—as far as I can see, a historian who actually reviewed the issue, not a popular writer who just repeats an interesting story—as more reliable than most other sources. Ucucha 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not buying it. I could see stretching to an "although Kirkpatrick (1924) states that the rumour did not begin to circulate until after her death", but I don't see how we can rewrite a section against a pretty overwhelming consensus among sources, based on a single author writing 180 years after her death. – iridescent 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems precisely the kind of situation where people parroting each other create their own truth, even when actual historians know better. We should use the most reliable sources, not just count who says what. Kirkpatrick states explicitly that there are no records of the rumor from Steevens's lifetime, and given that he wrote a book on the hospital's history, he surely must have had some familiarity with those records. Another history doesn't even bother to mention the rumor, and neither does the (brief) DNB entry for the Steevenses. Ucucha 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to look at who the "people parroting each other" are, though. When one of them is Robert Chambers—arguably the most influential Scottish historian ever—and another is Desmond Guinness, possibly the world's leading expert on 18th century Ireland, you can't just dismiss them as "not actual historians". I agree that there doesn't seem to be any mention of the rumour prior to about 1800—and there's circumstantial evidence for it not being in wide circulation, in that people like Swift don't mention it—but we have to report what sources are saying, not what we personally think is true. Does this work as a compromise? It makes it clear that when the rumour surfaced is in dispute. – iridescent 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. That seems reasonable enough to me, though perhaps it's good to add some additional "according to the rumour" to the sentence about her sitting on the balcony. I looked for a few more sources; this says "During the nineteenth century she became part of the folklore of Steevens', and was said to have the face of a pig."; JSTOR 30105460, on the other hand, says the belief was widespread in her lifetime; doi:10.1007/BF02957318 says that her rooms in the hospital were on the ground floor (make of that what you will; I also read in various sources that the balcony she used was near but not in the hospital, and that she would sit at a window). Although I may have underestimated the reliability of some sources, what makes me consider Kirkpatrick particularly reliable here is that he appears to be the only source who gives positive evidence that he has considered the question of when the rumor arose, and the only one who cites primary evidence. Ucucha 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access the article; what exactly does it say? I'd be surprised if someone has a source for ACR; it's definitely unattributed in the original other than a printer's name, and none of the catalog entries at Worldcat give an author. Was it definitely A Certaine Relation that it says he wrote, and not one of the ballads mentioned in footnote 1? The section of the article I can see describes him as a ballad-monger, and ACR certainly isn't a ballad; it's a single huge poster-size sheet covered in densely-written prose. – iridescent 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • p. 457: "If one were anxious to injure Parker's reputation, one could advance strong evidence to show that he soon outdid himself by writing anonymously a prose tract called A certaine Relation of the Hog-faced Gentlewoman called Mistris Tannakin Skinker, who was borne at Wirkham." Ucucha 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it doesn't seem implausible that that is the original source—it goes from a peep-show with a representation of Griselda eeting from a silver trough, to Bondeson claiming that many thought the trough had been Griselda's, to this article saying it was alleged to have been Griselda's. Ucucha 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is an article I don't mind reading, and one I'd love to see promoted.

  • The "standard elements" section really doesn't agree with the explanation in the lead, and doesn't explicitly give dates- is that what was believed from the seventeeth century right up to the twentieth? In all those locations?
  • Aside from the single instance of the "Jewish convert" version, yes. The lead (briefly) covers the evolution of the story; "Standard element" summarizes those parts which didn't change. – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Dickens believe in pig-faced ladies, then?
  • Hard to say; he believed that the legend had been around for a long time, and wrote to that effect, but nowhere does he say if he actually believes it. (It's unlikely he did, although most of the other "prodigies" he mentions, such as the "piebald negro" and the "lobster-handed child" are verifiably genuine.) The "in every age" quote used comes from this article. He seems to have had something of a fascination with PFWs; they turn up in quite a few of his works (see [5]). – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to patronise, but are you sure you mean Holland? Holland and the Netherlands are not the same thing, the Netherlands are just sometimes incorrectly (or, I would call it incorrectly) referred to as Holland. To complicate things a little (and I admit I had to check our articles to get all of these), throughout this period, you could reasonably be referring to a period where the Netherlands were under Spanish rule, the Dutch Republic, the (short lived) Batavian Republic, the (equally short lived) Kingdom of Holland, a period as part of the French Empire, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and, finally, the country we currently know as the Netherlands. I appreciate that's not what this article is about, but a little clarification would be good.
  • I mean Holland, not the Netherlands or any of its successor/predecessor states—more specifically, the Amsterdam area onl. A Certaine Relation talks of "the lands of the Hollander", not "the Netherlands", and the Dutch versions of the story all appear to be set in or around Amsterdam. – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the period in question, all European prints are technically "Old master prints", whatever the printing method used. I have no intention of using the term, since 95% of readers haven't a specialist knowledge of archival jargon and understand something different by "old master"—there's too much chance they'll think Rembrandt or Hals painted her, or something along those lines. – iridescent 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking "Margaret of Henneberg" to the house is a little deceptive- I was expecting an article on the pig herself :P
  • "During Mrs Skinker's" You previously referred to her merely as "Skinker", which is probably a little more encyclopedic.
  • "Skinker" refers to Tannakin (the PFW); "Mrs Skinker" to Parnel, her mother. I didn't really want to keep writing the names in full, but can do if you think it's confusing.
  • Reworded the Skinker family in first-name terms per the MOS, although to my eyes it looks odd (in this 17th century context, it would be deeply disrespectful). I have kept a couple of occurences of "Griselda Steevens" in full even though it technically violates MOS, as I think it reads more clearly that way. – iridescent 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish the article in a little while, I have to head off for a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, continuing to read-

  • The Griselda Steevens section, again, has some family naming stuff- refer to the MOS link above. It looks fine how you've done it, to me, but we may as well go along with the MOS.
  • Not sure about the category on pig-faced women- this is the only article in the category, and the image pages could very easily end up speedy-deleted as the images are hosted on Commons. If they should be categorised, it should probably be on Commons.
  • When the category was set up, this was going to be a series of short articles rather than one long one. I've no objection if anyone wants to delete it. I'll strongly and noisily object if anyone tries to move the images to Commons and delete the local copies. The lead image is almost certainly not PD in Commons terms; more importantly, this is the kind of article Reddit picks up, and if they move to Commons (where we can't protect them if need be), we'll be spending all day reverting pictures of friends/enemies/Sarah Palin from it. – iridescent 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought no; aside from that hoax, it doesn't seem to have caught on in France in the same way as in London, Dublin and Amsterdam. Not sure what others think. Feel free to add categories; I'm aware that my attitude to categorization is narrower than most people's. – iridescent 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you know, but that article is beautifully researched and fantastically well written. I literally laughed out loud on several occasions, yet everything included was highly relevant, and written in the right tone. It doesn't follow a very standard format, but this is hardly a standard topic! This really has the umph that it'd be nice if all featured articles had. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Although you can't see it in the history (it was cut-and-pasted from a sandbox) this actually took more time than even monstrosities like Brill Tramway (made more difficult by the fact that nobody's put A Certaine Relation online). In a neat bit of synchronicity, I've just discovered that Ulysses includes the line "Forget not Madam Grissel Steevens nor the suine scions of the house of Lambert", which brings the last few weeks back to where they began in a neat circle. – iridescent 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Nitpicks only:-

  • Bibliography: for consistency, "Hyder E. Rollins, ed" should be formatted: "Rollins, Hyder E., ed."
  • Likewise, "John Wilson"
  • Another consistency point: refs 47-49 show publisher details in parentheses, whereas 13 doesn't.

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Rollins. John Wilson is the name of a publishing house, not an author. The difference in punctuation is owing to ref 13 being {{cite book}} while refs 47-49 are {{cite journal}}; any change would mean amending citation/core, which I'm not going to touch. (We have no policy, AFAIK, on the correct way to cite a chapbook.) – iridescent 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Times" is the formal name, and used in citations and references, and in the first usage of the term; "the Times" is what it's generally called in normal English usage and thus how it's referred to in the body text (after an initial use of "The Times" to establish which "Times" we're talking about). A look at their website confirms that this is the usage they use as well (with "The Times" as the masthead, but "Join the Times Advisory Board" as one of the links. – iridescent 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This is of course generally excellent, but just a few things:
    • There's some repetion of "originating roughly simultaneously in Holland, England, and France" in the last paragraph of Standard elements and the first paragraph of Origins.
    • "The other significant theory about the origin of the legend ...". We haven't been given any other theory, just a description of the earliest accounts of the legend.
  • The "other" theory is that given in the paragraph above as being propounded by Bondeson (you know my opinion of Bondeson generally, but as he was the doctor who supervised the modern tests on Pastrana's body, this is one area where he genuinely is the leading expert and thus I've put him first); that the PFW story evolved from earlier "woman gives birth to something unusual" stories and had no basis in fact, as opposed to Chambers' theory that there was a genuine woman with a facial disfigurement and accounts of her had been exaggerated. – iridescent 19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Chambers speculates that the original child may have had a similar appearance to Julia Pastrana, a woman with hypertrichosis and distorted (although not pig-like) facial features, who was widely exhibited in Europe and North America from the 1850s until the 1970s." Until the 1970s? That's apparently attributed to the 1864 version of Chambers.
    • The newspaper is sometimes given as the Times instead of The Times.
    • The capitalisation of "Pig-faced" isn't always consistent, such as in "Mr F. FitzHenry claimed to have known the Pig-Faced Lady's sister" and "belief in the Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square".
  • The link to Varahi definitely ought to stay; this is about the European tradition, and there's an entirely separate and independent Asian PFW tradition dealt with there. Penelope is there primarily to discourage people from thinking "oh, they didn't mention that", and hopefully prevent the unwelcome appearance of an "in popular culture" section; it's also likely to be what the majority of people searching for "pig-faced woman" are actually looking for. Pig Bride can go if anyone strongly objects to it; it's there for the same reason as Penelope, but is less likely to be a frequently searched term. – iridescent 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely agree re Varahi now that I've read that article further. I see where you're coming from on the other two, but somehow putting the other two in there essentially to discourage passing pop-culture mentions seems almost counterproductive; having those mentions at the very top of the article seems to me like the cure is worse than the disease. ~ mazca talk 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to some extent about Pig Bride, but I do think Penelope ought to stay there. The point of Wikipedia articles is to be useful to readers, and most people aren't interested in early-modern English folklore—to my mind, most hits on this page are likely to come from "what was that movie where Christina Ricci had a pig's head?" searches. If it's in a "see also" section at the bottom, they'll never see it; having it at the top tips them off right away as to where they ought to be looking. (I also put a similar one at the top of Alice Ayres, which serves the same purpose.) As long as the hatnote doesn't sprawl indiscriminately, it doesn't cause any problems—nobody's going to think "I won't read this article, the hatnote runs onto a second line"—so in my mind, if it helps even a single user, in the end it's a net gain. – iridescent 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me - I see your point about the way it doesn't do any quantifiable harm to the article and is potentially beneficial. Purely an aesthetic thing I think, I might just be a person that pays more attention to hatnotes than average! ~ mazca talk 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I've removed the link to Pig Bride, as I don't think many people will be looking for it. I do think Penelope should stay; I can easily imagine someone looking up "pig faced woman" to try to find the film, and this is currently the first Wikipedia page that particular Google search brings up. – iridescent 00:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [6].

The Author's Farce

Nominator(s): ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC). Ottava Rima[reply]

Third time's a charm, or something like that. Relevant info is on previous nominations. Requests for comment have been solicited and hopefully addressed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • No citations to Ingrassia 1998 or Kinservik. If not cited sources, these should be listed as "Further reading"
  • Ref 3: "p." not "pp."
  • The references list "Fielding 1967" and "Fielding 2004". The former is an edition of the play, to which a single quote from the play is cited. That's fair enough. But the numerous citations to "Fielding 2004" are of information that does not appear to come from Fielding, but rather from the compilers of Plays Vol. I of which Thomas Lockwood is given as the editor. You also have 3 citations to "Lockwood 2004" (6, 48 and 61). Is this the same book as Plays Vol. I? If so, I suggest that as Lockwood appears to have the prime responsibility for the cited Fielding 2004 material, the form of these citations is changed to Lockwood, and the reference is listed as "Lockwood, Thomas (ed.): Henry Fielding: Plays Vol. 1 (1728–1731) etc.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long; it's been done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I read this at its first FAC, and observe many improvements. I feel the article is close to FA standard, but would like to see comments on or attention to the following:-

  • Lead
    • The lead is on the short side, not really a summary of the whole article. For instance, it says nothing about the performance history and next to nothing about the critical reception.
    • The phrase "The Author's Farce is now considered a critical success..." is slightly confusing. It begs the question: "considered by whom?" I assume the intended meaning is something like "Modern critics generally approve of the play"; if so, I think the sentence should be appropriately reworded.
  • Plot section: the opening of the second paragraph does not follow smoothly from the first. I suggest: "The puppet show functions as a play within the play. At the start..."
  • Same para: I'm not sure about "In response...". Perhaps: "Mrs Novel then claims..."
  • Themes
    • Some repetitiive wording could be avoided. Thus "the plot serves as revenge for the rejection of Fielding's previous play.[10] However, Fielding's rejection by the Theatre Royal and his being forced into minor theatres proved beneficial..." could be simplified to "the plot serves as revenge for the rejection of Fielding's previous play. by the Theatre Royal.[10] However, his being forced into minor theatres proved beneficial..." etc
    • "contain plot structures that differed" is a clash of tenses
    • Third para, first line: perhaps "reflects" rather than represents? Only a suggestion.
  • Sources
    • I'm not sure here, but "who Fielding was aware of but were not directly connected to his life" doesn't read elegantly, and I am suspicious of the grammar. I would have written it as "of whom Fielding was aware but who were not directly connected to his life", but that may be just personal preference - think about it.
    • The tenses question arises again in the second paragraph, with "he also drew" and later "Fielding drew". The discussion of the play is generally in the present tense ("There is a strong similarity...", "both plays describe..." etc)
  • Performance history
    • Is the first sentence necessary? See beginning of Themes section.
    • Some confusion: the play opened on 31 March and ran for 41 performances. In the next paragraph we have "for its run beginning on 21 April 1730". Was this second run after the first 41 performances? Then we have later reference sto a run of 32 performances in May and June. How many "runs" were there? Obviously the matter is complicated by the number of changes and stagings of individual acts, but I don't yet get a clear picture of the early performance history. Perhaps there is a tendency towards overdetailing here?
    • "as far away as Dublin" sounds POVish
    • Fielding's producing a revised version is a significant fact that ought to be mentioned in the lead.
  • Critical response: I believe the section should be written in the literary present, e.g. "Most later critics agree...", "Frederick Homes Dudden, writing in 1966, is clear..." etc.

When these are addressed I'll be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Most of my concerns have been addressed, largely by Malleus. I've done a few fixes myself, mainly to resolve the clashes of tense that were evident, paricularly in the later criticism paragraphs. Overall I think the article now meets the criteria and I am happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I have two slight uneases about this article, the first rather similar to the comment attributed to Emperor Joseph II after first listening to Mozart's Il Seraglio – "too many notes". The level of detail occasionally feels obsessive, and can make it difficult to see the wood for the trees. My second concern is related to the first, and is most easily seen in the Critical response section, which seems to be little more than a prose list of everything anyone has ever said about the play. From the third paragraph onwards there seems little effort to organise the comments into themes. I think this section also needs a little pruning – I'm not sure what "Harold Pagliaro, in 1998, pointed out that the play was Fielding's 'first great success'" has got to do with critical response, for instance. Also, I don't entirely understand what "Wilbur Lucius Cross, in 1918, believed the play revealed Fielding's farcical and burlesque talent and not regular drama." is saying. He believed it in 1918 but not in 1917 or 1919? What exactly does "revealed Fielding's farcical and burlesque talent and not regular drama" mean? That Fielding had no talent for regular drama, or that it's simply not evident in The Author's Farce? Or something else? Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the level of detail, although it's pretty dry. Much drier than the actual play. In the distant future, we'll have vid excerpts of a modern reconstruction of the play.

  • No hyphen after an -ly adverb.
  • "it quickly"—you could remove "it".
  • "but he is poorly advised and the work is rejected by his local theatre." Remove "he" and put a comma after "advised".
  • A not-so-nice "noun plus -ing": "It begins with the Goddess of Nonsense choosing a mate from a series of suitors along the River Styx".
  • Awkward: "The goddess eventually chooses Signior Opera, a foreign castrato opera singer, as her favourite, after he sings an aria about money." Could it be: "The goddess eventually chooses a foreign castrato opera singer as her favourite—Signior Opera—after he sings an aria about money."
  • Why not use ellipsis more? "but she is quick to forgive".
  • "The play was first noted on 18 March 1730; notices ran in the Daily Post stating that the play was in rehearsal." Should that be "1730, when the Daily Post ran ..."? Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I do think this one is worth polishing to promotion standard. It is definitely within reach. Please keep at it. Tony (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
  • Support. I've rearranged the material in the Critical response section into what I think makes a more logical structure, and I think that Tony's prose objections have been dealt with. Some pruning has also been done to remove some (in my opinion) distracting detail, so I'm going to be the first to support this article's promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read through the article yesterday and saw no problems that I couldn't fix myself. Ucucha 18:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [7].

Saxaul Sparrow

Nominator(s): —innotata 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to meet the featured article criteria: Perhaps the text could be improved a bit, but I've decided that more improvements can be best addressed here now—comments on writing would be especially appreciated. This is a comprehensive account of its subject, though it probably could have a bit more if I knew Russian and could get at certain works in that language. —innotata 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • Comment -"It forages in trees and on the ground, feeding mostly on seeds, but also eating insects in the nest and while breeding. While it is not breeding it forms wandering flocks, but it is less social than other sparrows while breeding, often nesting in isolated pairs." I think something is wrong here.P. S. Burton (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support - all my issues addressed - really good read, just a few things. Canada Hky (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "behaviour" section "It is shy in many areas, and spends much time hidden in foliage, but it is reported to be confiding in Mongolia." --> is there a better word than "confiding" in this sentence? As is, I don't really understand what it is trying to say.
      • A small group of breeding birds in Mongolia were not shy, coming close to humans. Altered a bit.
    • Possibly a dumb question, but if Stepanyan is not yet notable enough for an article (presumably), does he really need to be WL'd?
  • Comment Support (moral or otherwise) Nothing jumps out at me WRT prose or comprehensiveness. I am a wikiproject birds editor but I'll be as impartial as possible Some minor style issues (I'd maybe not split distribution and habitat in separate sections as it leads to some repetition and choppiness, and generally put taxonomy before description but I wouldn't hold it as a deal-breaker) :) Jotting notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Females have less bold plumage.. - sounds odd to me, I was thinking of something like "more subdued plumage" (i.e. frame as positive not a negative comparative) - but not a deal-breaker.
I'm not sure this should be changed. Neither is a very good wording, but less bold seems somewhat clearer in the current context. —innotata 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/questions/suggestions by Sasata (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "…ranging from dull grey or sandy brown" change "or" to "to"
Done. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Females have less bold plumage and bills" bold in what way? Color? Shape?
Done, I think. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest piping disjunct to disjunct distribution, and probably at its occurrence later in the Taxonomy section
Done. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A bird of deserts, the Saxaul Sparrow favours areas with shrubs such as the saxaul, near rivers and oases." Is there a link that could be used here for saxual? This sentence slightly confused me until I realized with surety later in the article that saxual (lower case s) is also the name of a plant.
Jimfbleak linked to Haloxylon, though it is only certain species of that genus (probably more than the three mentioned in the current articles on the genus). —innotata 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It feeds mostly on seeds, as well as insects while breeding and in the nest." Potentially confusing construction… it eats seeds and insects it finds while breeding in its nest? Is the bird breeding or the insect breeding? Will it eat an insect in its nest if the insect in not breeding? See what I mean?
I meant as a nestling, which I've changed this to in the lead; there is not enough known to answer your questions. —innotata 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While it is not breeding it forms wandering flocks" Possible to replace "While it is" with the simpler "When"; another instance in the Behaviour section
Done. —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tail is short at 6.3–6.95 cm" looks funny to give differing sig figs in the range… is this how the source gives the values?
The source gives values for these measurements in millimetres. —innotata 17:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pinkish brown" -> needs hyphen
What's the problem here? —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
n/m, the compound modifier follows the subject and so does not need the hyphen to reduce umambiguity. Sasata (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like all other sparrows, it flies swiftly and often at height." High or low heights?
What do you mean? —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably just a regional difference in English, but I don't recall having heard the expression "at height" used in this way. I not clear what meaning the phrase conveys... does the bird fly at high heights? Sasata (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever is a high height or a low height? I used "flies high", but Casliber changed this, with the editsum "avoid making it sound like it is stoned when flying...." —innotata 15:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link coverts, buff, crown, classified
I thought these were all linked at the first mention. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the current taxonomical status of Zarudny's Ammopasser?
Again I don't know what you mean. It is a valid name, as far as I know. —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the sentence, I think the problem is that in "The Saxaul Sparrow usually is classified in the genus Passer with the House Sparrow and around twenty other species,[17] although a genus Ammopasser was created for this species by Nikolai Zarudny in 1890." the subject of "created for this species" in somewhat ambiguous, and I mistakenly assumed that Saxaul Sparrow was the subject. Sasata (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Saxaul Sparrow was the subject; this has been clarified by Ucucha. —innotata 15:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's three repetitive uses of "suggest" or variations thereof in close succession in the second paragraph of Taxonomy; similarly, three consecutive sentences in the final paragraph being with "It".
  • perhaps link threatened
Not sure that's the best page to link to. Aren't conservation status, habitat destruction, etc. enough?
  • how about using the common name ladybug and linking to Coccinellidae?
Not all members of Coccinellidae are ladybugs; the article if anything uses British English. —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… due to its dry habitat and its choices of nesting locations, holes in trees and earth banks." Potential ambiguity: is this a (non-serial comma) list, or are "holes in trees and earth banks" its chooses for nesting locations? If the latter, perhaps an emdash might be more appropriate than a comma after "locations".
I think that dashes should only be used for serious emphasis or drama, and hence should be absolutely minimised on Wikipedia (I also use commas too much, in a rather Victorian manner, in any context), but I can't think of anything better (this bit of text has been very hard to write). —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and nests have been recorded on the nests of birds of prey" does this mean the sparrow builds another nest on top of the bird of prey nest, or does it simply reuse the bird of prey nest?
It presumably builds its nest on the side of an actively used nest; I think you probably can find images of this for other species, but sources cited say "in" or "on" "the nests of birds of prey". —innotata 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is an ovular form? How about a "white ground color"?
The section eggs has been rewritten. —innotata 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yellowish brown" -> hyphen
  • Thinking about info I've sometimes seen in other birds articles (and realizing that the answer may well be "unknown" to most/all):
  • how long for incubation? to fledge? Any info on development of young birds? Are they born blind and naked, when do they develop feathers, etc.
  • any data on lifespan? Parasites? Predators?
  • any observations on how it gets along with other birds with which it co-occurs?

Support Comments I've linked the saxual plant. Stepanyan is indubitably notable, why not do a short stub yourself, or alternatively tweak to link to the existing Conspectus article instead? No real concerns, but I'd like to see replies to Sasata before supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stepanyan described the subspecies a long time before he wrote the Conspectus. I don't have enough information to write a biography; Shyamal may. By the way, I understand you and Sasata mean "saxaul" by "saxual". If so, I can see why Drmies made the redirect sexual sparrow. Thanks for commenting. —innotata 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamal has made an article at L. S. Stepanyan. —innotata 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few small comments:

  • Like Sasata, I'm not quite sure what "at height" means.
  • I can't find the "similar song" in the lead back in the body.

Ucucha 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting and making small edits. I've removed the "similar" from the lead. —innotata 17:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with just one comment:
    • Any reason why fractions are used for imperial (i.e, 5 ½ inches) instead of decimals like everything else? For me, 5.5 inches is much easier to read than the tiny fraction symbol.
  • I'm not particularly experienced with animal articles, but this one certainly seems to be up to the standard of Thomasomys ucucha, a recently promoted FA I helped to review. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [8].

Ambrose Rookwood

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Rookwood was one of the less important conspirators enlisted by Robert Catesby into the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, but his story deserves telling, if only to highlight how naive he was to have thought that it could ever have worked. A well-dressed, somewhat showy individual, his love of the Catholic faith was not the most important consideration for Catesby. Rather, it was his stable of fine horses, essential for the planned uprising, that proved essential to the plot. Despite declaring his love (nothing unusual) for Catesby at his arraignment in January 1606, he was regardless dragged to the scaffold, hanged, castrated, disembowelled and then chopped into bloody pieces on a freezing cold English winter morning.

So now you're feeling all warm and cozy about Stuart-era English justice, hopefully you won't subject me to the same fate... Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Are the dates New or Old Style?
they're all relative to 5 November 1605, whatever calendar that might be in.
    • Then you should probably specify that dates after 1 January are New Style, because the start of the year in England then was 25 March, not 1 January. See Old Style and New Style dates--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a point which is made in the Gunpowder Plot article as part of the story mentions how they celebrated the new year. I don't think its relevant here, however. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that nearly all English sources prior to 1752 are going to refer to the execution as happening in January 1605, not 1606, since 1606 had not yet officially begun. Catholic sources, of course, are going to follow the Gregorian calendar and its reform of the start of the year, but not Protestant ones. I haven't really done much reading on early modern period articles on Wiki, but I suspect that many editors have glossed over this issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still don't think its a problem. Not a single source I have seen (bar mention of celebrating the old new year in Gunpowder Plot) makes the distinction. The universally recognised date of the foiling of the plot is 5 November 1605, and all other dates in this article are relative to that, not 1752 or thereafter. Fair enough if I'd written "400 years ago on this date" anywhere in the article, but I haven't. Anyone wishing to research the topic from contemporary documents will have to work around the calendars themselves. For this article I don't think its necessary to mention the old/new calendars, since it has no impact on the reader's understanding of the topic. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles in refs should conform to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles
you'll have to point out where you think a problem exists, but I don't normally change the titles of online sources.
  • Rookwood or Rokewood? I realize that spelling was a bit variable back then, but the other Gunpowder Plot articles that I looked at use Rokewood.
all sources in this article use the former.
I don't see that source, where is it? Parrot of Doom 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good ... well-written. Just:

  • Linking: are "Catholic" and "Protestant" obscure enough to link? Horse-breeder? Staffordshire, straight after the more specific Holbeche House? Hurdle?
  • Should "Papist" not have a small p?
  • Jesuits and Flanders linked twice? "Hanged, drawn and quartered" twice? Tony (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can guarantee that if I don't link Catholic and Protestant, someone else will, and then they'll change it to Roman Catholic, or Catholic Church in England and Wales. Best to remove temptation as those links tend to attract argument :) I think its fine to link horse-breeder as its a fairly specialised activity. The source used for Papist (Fraser) capitalises the word, so I followed suit. I removed the extra links to jesuits and flanders, but I think that HD&Q is far enough away from the lead to warrant being linked twice. Parrot of Doom 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed Staffordshire, and have removed that also. I'll keep hurdle as I doubt many today will know what that is. Parrot of Doom 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm a bit surprised this one's languishing like this, as I can't see significant issues with it. The one minor thing I'd question is "Nevertheless he seems to have been left to hang for longer than the others, before being taken to the block to be castrated, disembowelled, and quartered". Unless the reader's familiar with executions, they probably won't understand that this was a mark of respect on the part of the executioner in making sure he was unconscious before his body was dismembered, rather than an additional punishment by leaving him hanging longer; it probably warrants some kind of note. – iridescent 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could certainly add that but several sources on HD&Q state that after hanging, unconscious malefactors were brought back from sleepyland with a good slap and a splash of water, so I'm not sure its appropriate to speculate. I'll see if any of the Gunpowder Plot sources mention this. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it on Everard Digby, but I'm not too keen on the "biography" heading, as the whole thing is a bio, is it not? I'm not too sure on that one though so I'll leave it to someone more experienced.
    • No, you're quite right, and I've changed it accordingly.
  • I'm pretty dumb, I didn't know what a cutler was. I considered linking to cutlery, but that's a disambig.
    • In this instance its a person who makes swords. I considered linking it to Sword making but that's a horrific article, and not particularly relevant.
  • 'As such weapons were generally worn in public, it was "a potentially dangerous statement of faith"' - according to whom?
    • Haynes cites it as "PRO. Sp 14/16. ff. 27-27c", which frankly might as well be Martian to me. The quote is cited to Haynes' book, however, so if anyone needs to they can track it down.
  • Conspiracy or plot? You've referred to it as both. I think it should be consistent.
    • They're used as synonyms in these articles, normally to avoid word repetition. Contemporary sources also used both words.
  • "The modified sword, which in total probably cost Rookwood more than £20..." If you're going to mention the price, it might be useful to say what today's equivalent is.

That's all I can come up with really. Aiken ♫ 23:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I worked with Parrot of Doom on the core Gunpowder Plot article, but I've had nothing to do with this one. I think it's an engagingly written account of the plot from the point of view of one of the lesser known conspirators, and that it fully meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some suggestions:
  • Don't use contractions in article text
This is a matter of taste and not policy, I'm happy to use contractions where I feel they improve the flow of the article.
  • I'm not sure it makes sense to say that his role was "Uprising"...maybe "Conspirator"? Similarly, "Conviction" implies that the person was found guilty, so that entry as written seems a bit redundant
He was a conspirator, but his role was in the uprising, just as Guy Fawkes was a conspirator whose role was lighting the fuse. I'll have a look at the conviction entry, however, as that clearly isn't right.
  • "made a serious dent in the family's finances" - revise this phrasing?
What don't you like about it?
It's more a matter of personal taste, but to me the phrasing seems a bit...colourful for an encyclopedia, more like something from a novel. If you like it, you can leave it as it is
  • "Robert had sired four children, but all predeceased their father" - your cited source (at least the Wikisource version) specifies four sons, and you later mention half-sisters
Unfortunately this is just about all the information I can glean from the sources used, who understandably tend to focus on the main figures in the plot, such as Catesby, Fawkes, etc.
Well, since your source specifies sons, I would argue that to say "children" is incorrect
Fair point, I've changed it to sons. Parrot of Doom 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the Coldham Hall image be moved to the start of the Enlisted section?
It was initially, I don't mind if anyone wants to move it. It's not a great image anyway.
  • Are "praying beads" the same as prayer beads? If so, perhaps a link for the non-Catholics?
Very likely, however, I don't feel qualified to make that link since the source describes them as "praying beads" in quotes.
I've tried but failed to find it. Parrot of Doom 09:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [9].

Rivadavia class battleship

Nominator(s):  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC), Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rivadavia class did almost nothing but show the flag during their actual careers, but that isn't the interesting part (thankfully); it's what happened before they were commissioned.

First, the competition to simply build the two ships was fiercer than a lion defending her cubs. Famous shipbuilders from five major countries vied for it, and each country's government did as much as they could to assist. Eventually a dark horse, the United States' Fore River, managed to overcome a stunning amount of obstacles to win the contracts, which engendered scathing criticism from Britain and Germany. You would think this was enough drama, right? Read on.

While the ships were being built, the First World War flared up in Europe. Suddenly everyone—especially Britain and Germany—wanted to make sure that the Rivadavias went to Argentina rather than an enemy... which conflicted with Argentina's sudden desire to sell both ships.

Really intriguing story, albeit a muddled and confusing one. Hope you enjoy your read-through; as always, any and all comments are welcomed and encouraged. The article just passed a Milhist A-class review.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just got Ed's email offering me a co-nom ... I'm going to grab it for one of these 3 articles (Moreno, Rivadavia, and the class article), might as well be this one. I bought two sources, got one ILL, and have generally checked the article against the sources and done some of the writing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The introductory sentence is clumsy.
Current: "The Rivadavia class was a two-ship group of battleships (Spanish: acorazados) etc..."
Suggested: "(The) Rivadavia was a class of battleship (Spanish: acorazados), numbering two ships, etc...."
This change gets around the awkward doubling-up of "class" and "group" which mean similar but not the same things. It avoids having to link "group" to "Ship class" (which is a most specific thing, and not just a group. The word "class" can now be linked to "Ship class" which merely qualifies what type of class.
"two-ship group" is undtidy and inadequate. "numbering two ships" is better.
NOTE: consequent change of number from "group of battleships" to singular "class of battleship".
Include "The" or not, as deemed appropriate.
Amandajm (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. No one says "The Iowa" (etc.) meaning "The group of 6 ships in the Iowa class"; it would be way too easy to confuse that with the Iowa. We don't usually use "group" though, it wouldn't bother me to use wording that we use in our other "class" articles. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to respond here. Using your suggestion would indicate to readers that they are reading ARA Rivadavia, which isn't right. I could use the word "series" (cf 1, 2), or I could omit it all together (cf 3). Would that satisfy you? I agree that it is an awkward sentence construction, but I've never really thought about it before.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording that I've come to use for class articles is like this: The Océan class ironclads were a group of three wooden-hulled, armored frigates... It repeats the exact title of the article which is essential. The close conjunction of class, which should be linked, with group, isn't great, but unavoidable, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is "Minas Geraes-class battleships" (note the hyphen) used? If this is correct, presumably the title of this article should also have a hyphen. Ucucha 11:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SHIPS#Featured articles and search for "class". None of our FAs hyphenate this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never understood that myself, actually. I was always told that "Minas Geraes-class battleships" gets the hyphen, but no one ever told me why article titles don't use it.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always up for a hyphen discussion. Main point: maintain low expectations for standardization and sense-making. Last year's AP Stylebook, p. 359: "Use of the hyphen is far from standardized. It is optional in most cases, a matter of taste, judgment and style sense. But the fewer hyphens the better; use them only when not using them causes confusion." Tony1 prefers no hyphen for these even in running text (last I saw at WT:MOS), and I expect "Minas Geraes-class battleships" is liable to be misread as some kind of modified "Geraes-class". There's an ongoing discussion at WT:TITLE over our policy (not guideline) on italics in article titles; let's see how that turns out, because italics would affect the hyphen, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no strong preference for either solution, but I see no reason why this article should use "Rivadavia class battleship" but "Minas Geraes-class battleships"; overall consistency may be too much to ask, but internal consistency within this article would be desirable. Ucucha 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy either way, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked Maralia (talk · contribs) to comment, as she (if memory serves) was the one who explained all of that to me.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned all of the class articles should have hyphens as they're all compound adjectives, which should be hyphenated, with few exceptions. But I rather like hyphens; I'm rather odd that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a thorough A-class assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rivadavia class battleship, per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link, Dank. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking support; just got Ed's email offering a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Did some ces but "New Zealand's Evening Post was more analytical in its approach to the issue." seem's to overstep into editorial statement as teh only ref is the article itself; it appears to be placed as Wikipedia's endorsement of the punditry being more sensible; It may be but probably not for us to say that. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for that (and the support). - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "analytical" as "delved into the facts and avoided yellow journalism". Is there any better way to word it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "analytical"; see how that works, YM. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
Who is Seward W. Livermore? With him being a red-link, it would be nice to know who he is...is he a scholar, a naval Admiral, etc? We're left with no idea.
"Historian" wouldn't be inaccurate, but Ed has the book. I added "historian" but feel free to make it more specific if you like, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite a British attempt to allow the Armstrong Whitworth-Vickers team to lower their price by $570,000," Argentine Pesos and US Dollars use the same symbol. Accordingly this article shouldn't be using an unmodified/unlinked "$". (Note I picked one example of the problem here)
Should we link any ambiguous term or symbol every time it occurs in every article for the benefit of the people who don't read top to bottom? If so, we'll need to change WP:Linking, which recommends linking sparsely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but each use should be US$. Being an Argentine topic, I would expect the bare $ sign to refer to the Peso. Courcelles 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; MOSNUM is ambiguous, and either requires this or prohibits it depending on how you read it :) I've asked at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just got an answer at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies in line with what I was expecting. MOSNUM seems not to allow what you want, but I can add a note, see if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I tend to agree with Courcelles here, but yay for style guides. I'm fine with the note, although it could benefit from increased visibility if it was moved into the infobox... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for style guides, but MOSNUM is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get, I have to check the page every few months and ask when I have questions. If we were talking about a word rather than a symbol, the general principle would be WP:UE, which is actually policy. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...Argentina alleged to the United States' State Department that... " Perhaps use the full name, United States Department of State to avoid that awkward 'States' State'?
Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The two ships of the Rivadavia class were 594 feet 9 inches (181.28 m) overall and 585 feet (178 m) between perpendiculars." What is this? I'm 99% sure it is length.
If you click on the links provided, you can raise that to 100%. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same paragraph, is there a reason why the tons are written as 30,000 but the enlisted men as 1000 without the comma?
See WP:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits). - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23; location? Evening Post is highly ambiguous.

Courcelles 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As usual, I don't agree with much of MOSNUM, or the (on-wiki or real-life) primacy of the U.S. Dollar, but what else is new? Nothing left wrong with this article. Courcelles 20:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite happy yet with the prose.

  1. Can't quite see the point of linking "seeking bids".
    Because we have an article on the subject? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "the United States' Fore River"—could we avoid the ungainly possessive? Either just remove the apostrophe or "the American company Fore River". Then we get United States' again in the next sentence ...
    Reworded Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "This move shocked the European bidders, especially in Britain" ... European bidders were resident in Britain at the time?
    Removed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do we subject a battleship to rumours?
    The battleships' fate was subjected to rumors... I've changed it to "of". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is there a reason that "struck" has a Wiktionary link?
    When a ship is removed from a naval register, it is "struck" or "stricken" from it. I highly doubt that a common layman would know that, hence the link. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check that, the link was wrong (Wikt has page titles in upper- and lower-case, apparently). See wikt:stricken. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Rivadavia was scrapped in Italy beginning in 1959"—so it took years? Can't you say, for example, in 1959 and 1960?
    Ship breaking takes a long time even today, and the sources I've used don't say when it was completed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Why is Sao Paulo piped to "soaring demand"????
    There was a coffee boom in Brazil around that time, which allowed for the funding of the two dreadnoughts. It's eggy, but that's the way we did it in a previous FAC (Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Any reason "Scientific American" should be mentioned inline, when there's a ref tag a few mm to the right?
    To qualify it. Quoting it without saying who said it would make it seem like the article was promoting they were the best battleships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "American government"; normally "US administration" (or president's name administration), isn't it? Or "Washington's".
    Shortened to "American" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Can you write "million" to avoid 18 zeros in that sentence?
    No, because I want to keep consistency through all the large numbers, ie including 10,000 and ones I wouldn't write out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Still" is a bit informal here: "Still, since Europe was the traditional arms supplier"
    Copyedited here, but it may be more convoluted now... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "quick American diplomacy"—prompt?
    Good suggestion, added Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Suddenly a sterling conversion ... why? "Italy's tender was just $48,600 (£10,000) more".
    Whoops, I was putting all of them into notes, but I missed one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Try to shield readers from bad English in sources, here apparently in translation from the Spanish: the body which chose the final design, said: "The reason why the United States' tender was lower than the English is that steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England." So, do this: the body that chose the final design said the reason the American tender was lower than that of the English was that "steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England".
    Reworded using that, thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Biles quote: why start with ellipsis dots? The lower-case "i" says it, yes? After "government", put four unspaced points: "government....".
    I was always told in my college classes to start it off with an ellipsis if I was quoting from the middle of a sentence. I can change it if you would like; it's not a big deal. The four dots are done—thanks, I wasn't sure how to format it when I was copying in the quote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "They also made note of"--> "They referred to"
  17. "much cheaper than that of Britain's"—nope.
    Both addressed, the second before I came back and saw your comment. ;-) Poor word choices. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Why is "US$" linked? And MOSNUM says $ alone, unless there's some doubt. Who'd have suspected NZ dollars?
    There was something above about $ being the symbol for the Argentine peso, but we decided to take out the US$ anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

etc. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs unfamiliar eyes to run through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Some great pics, but why so small? I boosted one from the default 220 to 240, but up to 260 would be fine for a few if they have the res. Do you really like left-siders? Also, if you have the latitude, consider placing higher rather than lower in each section (avoids white space bottom of sections in really wide windows). Tony (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate left side images. :-) I placed some lower in sections to space them out, as the sections aren't equal in length. I just increased the size of some of the images as well. Thanks for the comments, Tony; they're much appreciated! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assuming I have not done so already, and it doesn't look like I have. Interesting article, I enjoyed reading it. I did have one question though: in the section discussing reaction to the awarding of the battleships to the United States you have the line "The Times took a different tack...", but I can not help but wonder if tack was supposed to be track. Otherwise it all looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • which paid for a massive 1904 $31,250,000 - "massive" is usually used for something physical, and appears colloquial here. Another word would likely be better.
  • came as an abrupt shock to the Argentine and Chilean navies - they weren't really a shock to the navies themselves, were they? And what is meant by "abrupt shock"? This should be re-worded to indicate more clearly that the strength of these ships vastly exceeded those in the Argentinian and Chilean navies, or perhaps that their strength shocked the navy commands or hierarchies - or both.
  • The cabinet was in favor - Which cabinet? The government at the time should be described here in a couple of words.
  • "the most up-to-date practice[s]", "a general machinery overhaul" - these quotations should probably be paraphrased, or cited if the sources are significant.
  • While both Schenia and Livermore explicitly state that the commission threw out all the bids twice,[14][20] neither makes it clear when this occurred. Livermore only goes into detail about one of these occasions, of which it is not clear if it is the second or third round.[19] - this kind of detail is valuable, it is essentially editorial comment by the article author, and is much better suited to a footnote than to the main article text. The main article should avoid discussing differences between the sources editors have chosen to use, particularly if this dispute is not itself discussed in reliable sources.
  • prompt American diplomacy granting various assurances regarding recent events between the United States and Brazil - the specifics of those "assurances" and "events" would be helpful in a footnote.
  • After Brazil sold Rio de Janeiro to the Ottoman Empire, Argentina began to actively seek a buyer for their two ships - you might want to give a bit more context here - e.g. why did Brazil sell the ship - and discuss the Argentine view that their own dreadnoughts were therefore no longer required.
  • destroyers had to be sent from Argentina to escort them home, as the Second World War had broken out during their stay. - this is unclear, why would destroyers have to be sent to escort them home? They were powerful dreadnoughts in their own right.
  • In general, have you considered using Wikipedia's inflation function to provides values in today's dollars?
    • SHIPS people generally don't, but I don't know why. I'll leave a note on User:Protonk's talk page asking about the relative merit of the figures used, he's an economist. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Inflation}} would give accurate conversions for this year, as the US has especially good price data (or good extrapolations) ranging pretty far back. Other countries (Russia & Italy come to mind) would not be conducive to a smooth conversion from an arbitrary point in the past to the present day and SHIPS articles outside US/UK/DE would have to convert using alternate sources. My guess is that SHIPS uses measuringworth.com in order to standardize references and presentation across their articles. On the subject of measuringworth.com, the website is supported by the Economic History Association, a serious scholarly association with a strong governing board, a few conferences, and a good (though not great) journal. I happen to be a member of the association (though not one of any consequence). They don't provide too many calculators outside of the US and the UK (China, Japan and exchange rates are included). One advantage measuringworth provides is a transparent conversion scheme. All (almost all) of their conversion pages have a short paper explaining the methodology and data sources--helpful background for a curious or adversarial reader/editor. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As all prices are given in (then-current) $US, wouldn't the inflation function work for all of them? Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Protonk. I don't have a preference, Jay; if we use a static figure, we could always run a bot to update the figures in future years. I have some reservations about using a template that works for some countries but not others, but I'll use it if there's consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the US (and especially the UK, as the inflation template simply pulls figures from measuringworth) the two are identical, with the only difference being auto-updating. Since the updating is yearly, I am inclined to view the choice between the two as a matter of preference and presentation. Since I suspect that SHIPS (like MILHIST) places a premium on standard presentation, my guess would be that a source used by the majority of their articles would be preferred, but I don't know for certain in this case. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind using {{inflation}}, but I'm not a template guy; how do I get the current year to show up automatically in the text? (I wouldn't want to say "in current dollars", because the reader would logically assume that was "current" when I wrote it, not when they're reading it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some of the more minor copyedits myself. Overall, a well-written and referenced article, and an interesting read. I'd like to see the issues above addressed. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [12].

Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC), Astynax[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is very well written and well sourced and I do believe it is worth of being raised to featured status. Kind regards to all. Lecen (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Fixed dashes, grouped citations for Gouveia, p. 276, and fixed dab for Order of the White Eagle to point to the correct article. • Astynax talk 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 08:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This seems like a very strong article, but I know virtually nothing about Brazilian history. I think you should notify appropriate noticeboards of this candidacy to try to entice comments from more knowledgable editors.

  • The infobox says he was a member of the Liberal Party from 1830 to 1834 and a Conservative from 1834 but this is not matched by the detail in the article.
  • In the lead, "conservative" is repeated twice in the same sentence and "liberalism" is described as a "conservative cause". I would find some other way of phrasing this.
  • Please see MOS:LQ and check that the article follows logical punctuation.
  • I find the claim that he came from an impoverished background implausible. His family were "a powerful clan"; his father was an officer in the army; he was raised by a colonel. Both his mother's and father's family were armigerous. This is a relatively well-to-do background at a time when the majority were living in uneducated squalor or slavery.
  • Why did the emperor abdicate?
  • Is there an easier way of phrasing: "The priest Antônio Feijó (along with Aureliano Coutinho, Carneiro Leão's former colleague at Coimbra University) planned a coup d’état in which he would assume dictatorial powers and concurrently the constitutional amendment would be passed without the approval of the National Assembly (Parliament)."
  • He was elected in 1830, and "displayed no indication" of energetic leadership or strong personality but in 1831, he averted a threat by delivering four speeches in a day, and the following year he gives "the most important speech in his entire political career." So, the statement that he displayed no dynamic leadership or strong personality is proven incorrect. I think the section: "He made a discrete start...upon Brazil's fall into anarchy during the regency period." should be rephrased along the lines of:
As a member of the opposition to Emperor Dom Pedro I's government, he made a discrete start in the Chamber of Deputies,[28] primarily focusing on bureaucratic activities such as participation in parliamentary committees.[27] However, upon Brazil's fall into anarchy during the regency period of the 1830s, the energetic leadership and strong personality for which he would later become famous became apparent.[29]" (I have kept the original reference numbers, but obviously they will change)
  • It is not clear what the "aftermath of restorationist troubles in Minas Gerais province" was.
  • It is not clear whether the Additional Act led to decentralization or was, as the article says, "a result of" it.
  • "...when they began throwing their support..": who are they? The Coimbra bloc?
  • Is "he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister" in the references cited at the end of that section? How does José Antônio da Silva Maia fit in? He is listed as the emperor's principal minister 1843–4. If this is in the references given, are there any sources that contest the claim that Paraná was the first de facto prime minister?
  • The article is almost wholly positive about Paraná, and the legacy section only quotes favourable interpretations of his life. Where are the unfavourable ones? DrKiernan (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DrKiernan, thank you very much for reviewing the article. Let's answer your questions:
  1. On polical parties inconsistency in the infobox: I fixed that.
  2. The Conservatives evolved from the Coimbra bloc, composed of politicians who supported Liberalism. In fact, the Coimbra bloc was part of a loose coalition called "Liberal Party" (not to confuse with the later Liberal Party which is mentioned in the article) during Pedro I's reign. Since Carneiro Leão did not enter politics in those years, I did not mention it. Perhaps it could be changed from "he championed the conservative causes of his day, namely liberalism" to "he championed the Brazilian conservative causes of his day, namely liberalism"?
  3. I'll ask Astynax to look ponctuation issues.
  4. On Carneiro Leão's impoverished background: all sources say that. The Carneiro Leão family came from Portugal to Brazil in the 1600s and settled in three provinces: Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Bahia. His family branch probably became decadent and by the time of Carneiro Leão's birth it was poor. His father was 3rd Sergeant. You should take in account that the colonial Portuguese army was badly paid. A colonel rank did not mean a high salary. That is precisely the reason that most military officers in Imperial Brazil were also politicians and farmers. In fact, as you probably saw, Carneiro Leão himself was both a politician and a judge. Do you have a suggestion to what we should do in this case?
  5. In 1826 King João VI of Portugal died, leaving Emperor Pedro I as the new king of Portugal (as Pedro IV of Portugal). He abdicated the crown on behalf of his eldest daughter, Maria II. However, her throne was usurped by Pedro I's younger brother, Miguel I. From 1826 to 1831 Pedro I's focus was directed toward his daughter's throne. By 1831 he was tired of having to deal with both Brazil and Portugal and went to Europe to fight against his brother. He invaded Portugal with an army of 8,000 men and defeated in 1834 his brother who had an army of 80,000 men (now that is a looong story). He died in that same year at age 35 of tuberculosis (a result of the war) but left a daughter in the Portuguese throne and a son (Pedro II) in the Brazilian throne. So, you believe we should add that to Carneiro Leão's article? I could, at most, add as a footnote something like "Pedro I departed to Europe to reclaim his daughter's throne (she was Maria II, Queen of Portugal) which had been usurped by his own brother, Miguel I."
  6. On Feijó's attempt to become a dictator and pass a contitutional ammendment without the legislative process: I will ask Astynax to take a look in it.
  7. His first year as a national deputy was in 1830 and was pretty much lame. He did not make any speech nor did anything that could call attention. Only in the next year, and a couple of months after Pedro I abdicated, was that he stood up and revealed his skills. And the country only suffered from rebellions after Pedro I abdicated. I sincerely can not understand why the sentence is wrong. Could you be more clear, please?
  8. On the "aftermath of restorationist troubles in Minas Gerais province": sorry, it made more sense before, but I removed a paragraph that explained who were the restorationists. I will fix that.
  9. "Among its provisions, were the abolition of the Council of State, and establishment of a federal national structure as a result of administrative and political provincial decentralization". I changed to "and establishment of a federal national structure resulting in administrative and political provincial decentralization"
  10. Changed from "appeared when they began throwing their support" to "appeared when the Coimbra bloc (boosted with former restorationists' adhesion) began throwing their support". Better?
  11. There were several "strong" ministers in Brazilian history pre-1843 who could have been themed "de facto prime ministers" such as José Bonifácio (hero of Brazilian independence and minister from 1822 to 1823) and Bernardo Pereira Vasconcelos (from 1837 to 1839 after the Araújo Lima became regent) but it was with Carneiro Leão that the practice was firmly established. After him, there was always a de facto prime minister (but the office was only officially created in 1847). José Antônio da Silva Maia was a minor member of the Coimbra bloc. Where did you see that he was a prime minister?
  12. On Carneiro Leão's legacy: historian Aldo Janotti wrote that "One of the most seducing aspects of Historiography is given by the controvertial position to which historians usually take when they judge things and men from History. True historigraphic chains are formed and all of them contrary to each other. What one affirms that other strongly denies, turning it from a denial into its own affirmation, thus giving the opportunity to the appearence of a third position..." and ends with "In the Brazilian case, however, specially in relation to" Carneiro Leão, "it seems that the rule finds its exception. The Marquis of Paraná (1801-1856), from his contemporaries to later ones, men of the diverse ideas and tendences, he is unanimously accepted as the pinnacle of the historical evolution of the Empire." (p.11) I did not find critics to Carneiro Leão, beyond, however, the ones on his character, that is, his arrogancy, rudeness, acid tongue, etc... which are mentioned in the article. Unless I find a criticism, the article won't pass?
Again, thank you, --Lecen (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, that's clearer.
2. How about removing "the conservative causes of his day, namely" so that it reads "As co-founder of the Brazilian Conservative Party,[1] he championed liberalism, ..."
3. OK.
4. Well, if all sources say that, then I can't really complain. If I were writing the article, I'd probably try to use "modest" or "humble" or something like that, but obviously you'll have to follow the sources.
5. Hmmmn. Yes, try the short footnote. I agree all the detail should be left out.
6. There's nothing wrong with the sentence per se. It's just a little long.
7. My problem with it is that expecting him to make a big splash immediately is an unrealistic expectation, and we're only talking about a 12 month quiet gap between election and fame. The way it's currently worded would indicate to me that it took him a long time to build up to his grand entry into politics, whereas actually it only took a few months.
8. Pending.
9. Thanks, it's clear to me now.
10. Yes, that's better: but I've taken out "adhesion" as it is unnecessary.
11. I saw it here: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Brazil.html Perhaps they're confused? I see da Silva Maia was "Minister of the Empire": I'm not sure what that means. The important point is whether the claim is verifiable. As long as you can provide a reference that says he was the first, and I or anyone else cannot provide a reference to the contrary, then it's fine.
12. It should pass if it meets the criteria. If historians do universally admire him, then the article would accurately reflect established scholarship, so again it's fine.
13. One other point, I missed out earlier: in some of the succession boxes, the predecessor or successor are not known. I'd probably remove those, unless the officeholder can be identified. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Done.
2. Done. Removed the word "conservative".
3. Pending.
4. Done (I changed to "humble" background).
5. Done. I added a note. However, I'll ask Astynax to change it to a true footnote similar to as can be found in the article about Pedro II of Brazil (See: Pedro II of Brazil#Explanatory notes).
6. Pending.
7. Pending.
8. Done. I just added a small bit of information regarding the restorationist movemet. Is it better?
9. Done. Just a small mistake.
10. Done. Made the sentence more clear by adding "Coimbra bloc (boosted by... etc...)
11. Minister of the Empire is the same as Minister of Interior. It doesn't mean a higher status when compared to other ministers. There are three sources to Carneiro Leão being the first de facto prime minister: "By personally selecting the cabinet members, he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister. Prior to this, the emperor had always designated the cabinet ministers. Following on this precedent, the office of prime minister would be formally instituted four years later, under the title "President of the Council of Ministers".[98][99][100]" The [98],[99] and [100] notes are the sources. Do you want me to copy them and also put them at the end of the sentence ("he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister")?
12. Ok.
13. Done. Removed. --Lecen (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Many of the quotes are translations, and the punctuation is based upon whether the quoted phrase completes the thought, rather than absolute position in the original. I've gone over the quoted material and have adjusted a few in which I could not confirm whether the ending punctuation was part of the quote.
6. I have made two sentences of the over-long sentence regarding Feijó's coup plot. Hopefully it is easier to read.
I'll work on making a section for explanatory notes. • Astynax talk 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thank you; I would have expected history to have paid more attention to his views on slavery, and to have brought him to task for owning them, but looking through the books available to me it does look as though this is not a heavily covered area in the literature. I can only find one quote from 1850 where he says the trade should be abolished because of the British pressure. I'm satisfied that this article meets the criteria, and I would also praise the speed and willingness with which comments have been addressed. . DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Having read it, I can't really find anything to comment on or complain about. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment. This is a fine article, well-researched and painstakingly written, but I think there are some outstanding issues, though I am close to supporting.
    • Prose concerns:
      • "Paraná was appointed by the national government as president of Pernambuco province to investigate and uphold a fair trial for the rebels": the problems are in "investigate and uphold a fair trial". One doesn't investigate a trial, and "uphold" isn't right either. I suspect (from reading the body of the article) that what is meant is something like "to investigate the case against the rebels and ensure that they received a fair trial". However, even that may not be accurate: was he appointed to ensure a fair trial? Or was he appointed, upon which he took it on himself to ensure it? I think the latter is the case in which case my rephrasing is not accurate either.
      • "Unexpectedly, he died in office of an unknown disease": not a very natural phrasing; typically the adverb would not be the first word in the sentence in this case.
      • "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica and was capital of Minas Gerais, where he spent his childhood and adolescence": what is the antecedent of "where"? Minas Gerais or Ouro Preto? I think the latter, parentheses would do a better job than commas at avoiding the former interpretation.
        Ouro Preto is a town in the province of Minas Gerais. Do you believe we should me more clear? The article already says that Minas Gerais is a province. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I wasn't clear about this one. What I'm not clear about is this: did he spend his childhood in Minas Gerais? Or in Ouro Preto? Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        To be more clear: one could read the sentence as saying he spent his childhood in Minas Gerais, but not necessarily all in Ouro Preto. I'd suggest either "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica and was capital of Minas Gerais. It was in Ouro Preto that he spent his childhood and adolescence", or "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica. Ouro Preto was the capital of Minas Gerais, where he spent his childhood and adolescence", depending on which interpretation is intended (probably the former). Mike Christie (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. Is it better now? --Lecen (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed "discrete" to "discreet", thinking that was what was intended, but I think "modest" probably has the desired connotations.
      • "In concert with his colleagues, this prevented restriction of legal rights": I think this should at least be "the restriction", but "this" isn't appropriate after "in concert with his colleagues", which implies that the subject is a collective "they" -- he and his colleagues.
    • Other points:
      • A map would be helpful just to identify some key locations. Brazilian geography will not be well-known to most readers; a simple overview identifying the key provinces/captaincies/whatever is most relevant would be useful. User:Kmusser is often helpful with map requests and does good work, if you decide it would be worth adding a map. I would not oppose for the lack of a map -- this is just a suggestion.
      • "it was forbidden to hold both that position and retain a seat on the Council of State, of which he was a member by that time": membership of the Council of State sounds more important than his other roles; should we not have heard in more detail about his membership of the Council before this? And shouldn't some details at least be given at this point, if not before?
      • the "Moderate Party" is first mentioned in the paragraph on the Coimbra bloc, without identification -- are these the same as the Nativists? Similarly the "restorationists" are first mentioned here. Reading on, I think the restorationists are in fact the Nativists, but that's not at all clear.
      • In the section "Party's leader in the Chamber of Deputies" I would reorder the sequence: you have Feijó assuming office at the start of the paragraph, with the rest of the paragraph functioning as a flashback. I think this is needlessly disorienting.
      • You have some quotes directly from the historians that I think are unnecessary and could be paraphrased. I understand they are often pithy and apposite but quoting in this way should be done sparingly, and there are too many, though they are appropriate in the "Legacy" section.
      • Why did the Coimbra bloc's ascension to power mark the demise of the Moderate Party? I must be missing something here.
      • 'This group would evolve during the 1840s into the "Liberal Party"': Why is "Liberal Party" in quotes? Same question for "Courtier faction" a few sentences later.
      • "Carneiro Leão showed preference for his co-religionists when filling cabinet positions" -- this is the first mention of religion. (I assumed they were all Catholic.) What does this mean?
      • "In January 1844 the president requested the dismissal of the inspector of the Rio de Janeiro customs house": but according to the preceding paragraph the title "president" isn't adopted until four years later.
  • Incidentally, if you want to interleave your replies with mine, that's fine; I see you responded after Dr K's comments above, but it might be easier if you indented your replies in turn after my comments. Either way will work for me.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mike, for taking your time to review the article. I mean it. I will not interleave my replies with your remarks because since there are two editors (myself and Astynax) working in this article, I want to avoid the questions and replies becoming a mess. Also, I'd like to tell you that anything related to grammar, spelling or similar ask Astynax. Anything that has to do with the subject, I'm the person! So, I will leave your remarks about grammar unanswered (if you don't mind) and leave it to Astynax.
That works. I'm going to intersperse my replies to your comments below; I hope that's OK. Then if there is more to say you can start a fresh list below, as you did for Dr. K. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: was he appointed to ensure a fair trial? Or was he appointed, upon which he took it on himself to ensure it? I think the latter is the case in which case my rephrasing is not accurate either.
As the president of the province (that is, governor of state), Carneiro Leão was supposed to keep a close eye on the justice system to check if the rebels would get a fair trial. Is not that he had any kind of power to do anything for real.
It's much improved, but I think one more little tweak is necessary. Currently the lead implies that he was appointed to urge a fair trial; that is, that it was the intention of the appointment that he should urge it. Unless the sources specifically say that I would suggest changing it to "... investigate the matter; he urged that" which removes the implication. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "it was forbidden to hold both that position and retain a seat on the Council of State, of which he was a member by that time": membership of the Council of State sounds more important than his other roles; should we not have heard in more detail about his membership of the Council before this? And shouldn't some details at least be given at this point, if not before?"
That's because it is mentioned that he was named for a seat in the Council of State in section "Against the Liberal rebellions of 1842".
OK. I see the later explanation doesn't give a precise date, but it appears his appointment was between November 1841 and May 1842. Could we change the earlier sentence to "to which he was appointed in 1841" (or 1842 if appropriate)? Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got it. I only mentioned the recreation of the Council of State, not the date in which he was appointed. --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was reading the book and the author is not clear on that. Certainly he was named among the 10 who were chosen as councilors to the recreated Council of State. I presume the list with the nominations was released along with the law that recreated it. Anyway, what do you propose? --Lecen (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's just leave it as it is. I've struck my comment above. Mike Christie (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "the "Moderate Party" is first mentioned in the paragraph on the Coimbra bloc, without identification -- are these the same as the Nativists? Similarly the "restorationists" are first mentioned here. Reading on, I think the restorationists are in fact the Nativists, but that's not at all clear."
My mistake. The alliance between the Coimbra bloc and the Nativists was called "Moderate Party". In one of my edits I must have erased that. I added it back. Everything will make more sense now.
That resolves it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "you have Feijó assuming office at the start of the paragraph, with the rest of the paragraph functioning as a flashback. I think this is needlessly disorienting."
I'll ask Astynax to take a look in it.
Mike: "You have some quotes directly from the historians that I think are unnecessary and could be paraphrased. I understand they are often pithy and apposite but quoting in this way should be done sparingly, and there are too many, though they are appropriate in the "Legacy" section."
I'll ask Astynax to take a look in it.
Now OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "Why did the Coimbra bloc's ascension to power mark the demise of the Moderate Party? I must be missing something here."
Also my mistake. The "Moderate Party" is the name given to the loose coalition formed by Nativists (led by the priest Feijó) and the Coimbra bloc (led by Carneiro Leão). Since I did not make that clear before, it looked weird here. The Coimbra bloc was against Feijó and his Nativists' coup in 1832. With Feijó's election as regent in 1834, the division between them only grew. In 1837 they managed to remove Feijó from office bringing the final and true split between the Coimbra bloc and the Nativists. Or in other words, the end of the Moderate Party.
OK -- the earlier clarification makes this completely clear. Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "Carneiro Leão showed preference for his co-religionists when filling cabinet positions"
My mistake. I should have written "co-party members". That is, he called only members of the Conservative Party. That's nothing to do with religion. Fixed that.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike: "but according to the preceding paragraph the title "president" isn't adopted until four years later."
You are correct, but historians (as can be seen in the article) consider him the first de facto Brazilian Prime Minister. Although not called "president" then, we took the liberty to do that. Similar to "Byzantine Empire": the Eastern Roman Empire never called itself as such and that was a name created centurie after it disappeared. Even so, historians call it "Byzantine Empire". However, I changed it for "he".
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very tired now and I know I left a few questions unanswered. I promise I'll do that first thing in the morning. Once gain, thank you, Mike. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I have edited the article to address your comments and suggestions in the "Prose concerns" section of your comments. I've also added a map showing the provinces in 1822 (feel free to substitute a better map). • Astynax talk 07:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • The notes are inconsistent about the use of dates; Barman is given as "Barman (1999)", but Janotti doesn't get a date, even though in both cases there is only one reference work. There are two by Carvalho so the date is necessary there. I would suggest either adding dates to everything or dropping them from everything except Carvalho.
  • This isn't something I'd oppose on, but it's not necessary to link the footnotes and references into a single section, as you have done under the title "Bibliography". See WP:FOOTERS, which suggests that sub-sectioning these end sections is undesirable. Mike Christie (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because most articles related to the history of Brazil as an Empire share pieces of information and sources. For example, some of the information that was written here was taken from "History of the Empire of Brazil", where 3 books written by Barman are used as sources. Is "Barman (1999)" really an issue? --Lecen (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wouldn't oppose on either of the issues above; they're just suggestions. Two more questions below:
  • The lead mentions his exceptionalism, which is not explicitly discussed in the article; I think it should be made clearer in the body of the article where his views are thought of as exceptionalist.
  • There is a picture here in pt.wikipedia that seems to be freely licensed and might be useful; any reason not to use it?

At this point, the issues remaining are minor enough that I am changing to support, though I'd still like to see the prose tweaks suggested above. Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It meant that Brazil should pursuit its own course, that is, a Portuguese-speaking parliamentary monarchy unlike its Hispanic-American Presidential Republic neighbors. That should be added to the main body of th text? --Lecen (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of what's in the body of the article, so yes, if it's worth mentioning in the lead, it should be somewhere in the body. Mike Christie (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, is it better? --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I did not add that photograph is because I have no way of proving its reliability. I don't know if I can really trust it and believe that is indeed a pciture of a house Carneiro Leão lived in 1832. --Lecen (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs cleansing, although nearly there. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to go right through it? I've looked at the top:

  1. Overlinking: why are all of those words linked in the opening sentence? statesman, diplomat, judge and monarchist. I think by now we know what a representative, parliamentary democracy is. Commonplace. The useful links are being drowned out. Why is Brazil linked twice again in the infobox, just after the more specific town-name? Dictatorship? Politician? Roman catholic? And you couldn't write a stub for the two red links in the infobox, could you?
  2. "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica." Why the italics for the last item? Remove "which was".
  3. "exercised great efforts"—ugly. "made"?
  4. "received a bachelor's degree in Law in 1824, and after another year of study, on 18 June 1825, earned a Master's diploma." Received and earned ... he didn't work for the first one? Remove "after another year of study,". Are you looking for redundant wording? Please see these exercises.
  5. "he supported the constitutionalists against the absolutists"—do we find out what these politics were? Even briefly wound into the sentence?
  6. Why is "processing plant" piped, and why to "factory" (is this useful for readers, or just more dilution of high-value links)?
  7. "Between 1831 and 1832 only, six uprisings occurred in Rio de Janeiro, the country's capital." The only is odd. "In 1831 and 1832 alone, there were six ....". Tony (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I agree that the article is close to FA standard, but there is inconsistent an inaccurate usage of "that" and "which" following restrictive and non-restrictive clauses throughout. The other "that"s need checking for redundancy as in "Carneiro Leão mistakenly believed that he could diminish the political influence of his rival" and "The Liberals knew that they could not return to power through the ballot box". I agree with Tony, it would be useful to find someone unfamiliar with the text to go through it. Graham Colm (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments In my humble opinion, the article still needs extensive copyediting before it can reach true FA standard. I'll try to do some of it myself and will note any issues here as they arise.
    • In the lead and much of the article: Shouldn't he be referred to as "Carneiro Leão" rather than "Paraná" when mentioning events that occurred before he received the title? I am not familiar with WP practice in this matter (surely there is an established standard—we have boatloads of nobility articles).
  • —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is called "Paraná" in the lead because that is how is always called in any history article, book, text and even letters written by Brazilians who lived during the Empire and who met him. In the article itself, he is only called "Paraná" after he is awarded the nobility title. Before that, he is only called "Carneiro Leão". --Lecen (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm about halfway done. In "Defender of the Constitution": "Carneiro Leão averted that threat by giving four speeches during the same day in which he urged the government to refuse this illegal demand." Do you mean he gave all four speeches in 19 July, or all for speeches in a single day, but not the same day in which the demands were presented? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were made in the same day in which the demands were presented. --Lecen (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt. He and I are a team. We did it all together. --Lecen (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2010&oldid=382912748"