Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 [1].

Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná[edit]

Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
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 - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 29 July 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]
  • The 2 footnotes which contained long text explanations are now moved to a new "Explanatory notes" section. Thanks for the copyedits, they do make for easier reading. • Astynax talk 17:48, 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]
  • I have also reduced the number of quotations from historians outside the Legacy section. I have left alone quotations from Paraná, Pedro II and other figures. • Astynax talk 09:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck both those comments. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 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]
  • The items 1–7 noted have been fixed per your good suggestions. • Astynax talk 09:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good read, no outstanding issues I can spot. Connormah 16:13, 30 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]
  • Prose looks OK now at a glance. Tony (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, should Astynax by a co-nominator on this FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 4 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/Honório_Carneiro_Leão,_Marquis_of_Paraná/archive1&oldid=1088205006"