Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 22:26, 9 January 2012 [1].

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias[edit]

Featured article candidates/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias/archive1

Nominator(s): • Astynax ^talk and Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, is widely regarded as Brazil's greatest soldier. He fought in his country's independence war and several other international wars. He also quelled rebellions in the early reign of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. Not only that, he was a member of the Conservative Party, became senator for life and was prime minister in three different occasions.

As you can see, this is a man who did a lot in his lifetime. To bring so much information in one short, single place, Astynax and I had to do a lot of homework. It took almost six months to bring this article from this to its present form. As we usually do as a team, I wrote the article and Astynax copy edited it. Not content enough, we asked Clarityfiend (from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to improve whatever was necessary on grammar, prose, or anything related to it. Fifelfoo was also kind enough to check all sources on the peer review we requested. Having said all this, we believe the article is good enough to be ranked among other Featured Articles.

The ones who had a chance to take a look at both Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil will certainly feel at home here. Have a good reading. Lecen (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Given the command of loyal forces, from 1839 until 1845, he put down uprisings": did he have have the command of the forces from 1839 to 1845, or put down uprisings during that time? - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Both. You'll see in the main text. --Lecen (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Lecen (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"he was officially designated as the army's tutelary patron, and is held as both its paradigm and the most important figure in its tradition.": I'm just pulling this out so others can comment on it.
Otherwise, the lead section looks very good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally deal with and don't have a good feel for referencing, but it's possible that some will argue that the article is overreferenced ... for instance, his height, hair color, eye color, and "round face" are supported by 5 references, 3 if you don't count duplicates. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Royal Military Academy, he took the infantry course. To graduate as an infantryman, he was supposed to take classes of the 1st and 5th year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. Although the entire course (which ran from the 1st to 7th year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers, he opted to take classes of the 2nd year in 1820 and the 3rd year in 1821,": I'm sorry I don't follow ... for instance, are you saying he was supposed to take certain classes during his first and fifth years at the school, but took them in his first and second years instead?
I'm not sure how to interpret the link to "bullying"; what constitutes bullying has changed quite a bit, even from decade to decade and country to country. It might be better to say briefly what he did that merited reprimands. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dank.

1) Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprise if another reviewer appeared here and complained about how the article is underreferenced. Could we keep until the article is promoted? I'll remove after that. Is that ok to you? [Lecen]

I don't generally deal with refs and don't have a preference. - Dank (push to talk)

2) He and his friends used to force the freshmen to handle them their money, he beated them, made pranks, etc... Isn't that bullying?

Okay, then "bullying" works for me. I'll remove the link, because I think the link raises more questions than it will answer for most readers. - Dank (push to talk)

3) The entire course in the Military Academy was ran for seven years. A student who wanted to graduate as infrantyman had to take classes in the 1st and 5th year. He could simply ignore the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th years. That didn't mean that this student had to wait other 4 years until he could take classes in the 5th year. He could finish the 1st year and start the 5th year on the following year. --Lecen (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow that, but I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each year in the Military Academy had different disciplines. To graduate as an infranty man, Caxiad had to graduate in all disciplines of the first and fifth years. He took classes of the first year in 1819 and of the fifth in 1820. He was not obliged to take classes in the first year, then second, then third, etc... He could "skip" the non-obligatory years. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORDINAL, ordinal numbers up to "ninth" should generally be written out, except when they're part of a name (so, keep "1st Fusilier Battalion"). "4th" etc. generally needs to be written out. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"one of Caxias' uncles (died 1837) joined the rebels.": This doesn't quite work in scholarly English. If you can make a case that the uncle was notable, then a link (even a red link) on his name would be best. Or, you could leave the date of death out if it's not important. Otherwise, if he was born in 1787, I'd go with: "one of Caxias' uncles ([name], 1787–1837) joined the rebels." - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually of the same age as Caxias. I thought it was important to add him to show how his family behaved and how different Caxias was. The date of his uncle's death was given so that readers wouldn't be wondering if there was a "Lima e Silva vs. Lima e Silva" showdown, each on a different side. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To other reviewers: note that I don't read Portuguese and I can't speak to the accuracy of any translations. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from my talk page. The issues aren't serious enough to withhold support, but I'm hoping someone will sort it all out.
[From Lecen] Hi, Dank, I made a few changes to a paragraph of Duke of Caxias that you found a little confusing. Here is what it looked like before:
In the Royal Military Academy, he took the infantry course. To graduate as an infantryman, he was supposed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. Although the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers, he opted to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. He took classes in the Royal Military Academy that ranged from arithmetic ...
Now it looks like this:
The the entire course (which ran from the first to seventh year) in the Royal Military Academy was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves was only needed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the second year in 1820 and the third year in 1821. The subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from arithmetic ...
Is it better now? Does the paragraph looks clear enough that anyone could understand it? --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to shorten it; let me know if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have some issues with the changes. If you read it again, you'll think that artillerymen and engineers study in a different course, not on the same as the infantrymen. You also removed "...subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from..." which will lead anyone to believe that he only studied "math, geometry, tactics, strategy, camping, campaign fortifications and terrain reconnaissance". There was a lot more on the curriculum than that. Now take a look at the next section ('Independence of Brazil'). It mentions that he was about to begin the fourth year in the academy but dropped it. Without the reference to the other years, this will look weird. You must also remember that "1st year", "2nd year", etc... do not mean "his first year in the academy" or "his second year in the academy", etc... The name for each academic year was "1st year", "2nd year", etc... this is why he did the "1st year" and then the "5th year". --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my support, given the change of the disputed section to "Youth and military education", and given the recent supports. The personal appearance stuff doesn't rise to the level of a stopper, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order
"How far their relationship progressed is unknown, but there may have been a failed engagement." - source?
"i.e., the monarchy, his "second faith"" - where is this quote from?
"Caxias supplanted Osório because he was seen as a loyal and dutiful officer who could serve as a role model in a Brazilian republic plagued since its birth in 1889 by military insubordination, rebellions and coups d'etat." - source?
Please review MOS:QUOTE for formatting and other relevant guidelines regarding quotations
Note C is missing the closing quotation mark. Please check for other omitted punctuation
When you provide English quotations from foreign-language sources, is this your own translation? If so, please review the MOS' guidelines regarding such translation, and also please double-check grammar/formatting; if not, please provide the translator info
Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Why do some references have doubled locations?
For journal references, should provide the complete page range of the article in the reference entry
Doratioto 2003: an article in Portuguese has an English title, or is this a translated title? If the latter, should be notated as such and applied consistently
Kraay & Whigham: this is an edited collection of essays by different authors, so is not currently cited correctly. The individual authors must receive attribution, not just the editors
Lyra 1977b: spacing
Google Books and WorldCat both give a different publisher for Lyra, and both include a series that you omit. Can you explain this?

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I note that the article would benefit from further copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:

1) I'll leave this one to Astynax.

2) "source?" It's there.

3) "where is this quote from?" My own. There to explain the reader what he meant by "little church".

4) "source?" It's also there. "According to Adriana Barreto de Souza,[217] Francisco Doratioto[218] and Celso Castro[219]..."

5) Also to Astynax.

6) Fixed.

7) "When you provide English quotations from foreign-language sources, is this your own translation?" If they came from foreign-language sources, it could be only my own translation.

8) "Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not" I placed them exactly as they can be found in the books. Nonetheless, they are all the same now.

9) "Why do some references have doubled locations?" They aren't. The first name is the city, the second one is the state (or province, or if there isn't any, the country).

10) "For journal references, should provide the complete page range of the article in the reference entry". Where it is said that this is necessary?

11) "...or is this a translated title?" Translated. I placed the Portuguese title, followed by the translation.

12) "The individual authors must receive attribution, not just the editors" I used as source the essay inside the book which was written by Kraay & Whigham.

13) "Lyra 1977b": spacing" Also to Astynax (I'm awful on anything related to these gadgets)

14) "Can you explain this?" I can't. I'm using the books I own.

Thank you for your imput. P.S.: Further info about Caxias can be found here. --Lecen (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order" I've fixed those. Is there something in the current MOS or FAC requirements that stipulates this? I don't mind reordering and agree that it looks better, but I'm asking because I could never find anything on this point other than some old guidelines that were dropped quite some time ago.

5 & 6) Closing quote marks have been added to the quotation.

13) The missing space was added following the comma. Thanks. • Astynax ^talk 09:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support content on 1b Comments on content. Given some discussion of content, I decided to take a look at this military-political biography of a 19th century Brazilian aristocrat. My perspective is of a 20th century labour historian who focuses on organisations. I previously looked over this in a peer review where I looked at citation formatting quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Extended content resolved and moved to talk Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check' by GrahamColm - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62 from Cryptic C62:

"Once again, unlike his father and relatives who either joined or supported the rebellions," Is there a non-trivial difference between joining and supporting a rebellion? I suggest shortening to "Once again, unlike his father and relatives who supported the rebellions,"
"In 1875, old and sick, he headed a cabinet for the last time. After years of failing health, he died on 7 May 1880." The phrase "old and sick" seems somewhat redundant with "after years of failing health." I suggest removing it.
~~"and is held as both its paradigm and the most important figure in its tradition." I don't think that "paradigm" is the correct work here. Perhaps you mean "paragon"?~~
"His godparents were his paternal grandfather, José Joaquim de Lima da Silva, and his maternal grandmother, Ana Quitéria Joaquina." I realize that there is not much information available about Caxias's early years, but is this even worth mentioning? Unless these two individuals are somehow noteworthy in their own right, I don't think that a person's godparents make for encyclopedic material.
"there is scant information regarding Luís Alves' life prior to age 36" I find this sentence somewhat peculiar since the next section begins by describing the subject's enlistment at the age of five. I think I would prefer to replace "life prior to age 36" with "early life".
"Seven years later, on 4 May 1818," Well this is rather obviously redundant. There's no reason to precede the sentence with two time statements like this. I suggest removing one, though I have no preference as to which.
Removed "Seven years later".
~~"(equivalent to a second lieutenant today)" Assuming this refers to the equivalent rank in the modern-day Brazilian Army, I suggest linking "second lieutenant" to Military ranks of Brazil.~~
It's the equivalent on Brazilian, U.S., French armies and others. I didn't add the wikilink because there is no table for comparison between the old (imperial) ranks and present-day ranks. Thus the link would end up being useless.
~~"A young man of regular features," Not really sure what this means. Are there many historical figures who possessed irregular features?~~
This is how he was described by the source. It means that he was neither handsome nor ugly. There was nothing distinguishable on his face.
"he was supposed to take classes of the first and fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively" What does the phrase "of the first year" mean? Clearly it doesn't mean "during his first year", unless he did a bit of time-travelling.
This part was changed. Now it reads "The entire course (which ran from the First to Seventh year) was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves only needed to take classes of the First and Fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years. In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the Second year in 1820 and the Third year in 1821." Is it clear now? --Lecen (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the section title Between family and loyalty to the crown. All of the others give a clear indication of where the information fits into his life, either chronologically or politically. This one sounds like the chapter title of a historical fiction novel.
This is exactly what happened. His father and uncles joined the protest and the Emperor asked what side he would chose. Do you have any suggestion? --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about something related to Dom Pedro I? A cursory glance at the content in this section seems to indicate that it all relates to Dom Pedro I's reign and Caxias's involvement therein. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Wars and military crises". Better? --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, much better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Thanks for the hard work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Great stuff, thanks. I personally don't think there's a contradiction in saying that not much is known, but then laying out what we do know ... for more modern subjects, a lot more will be known, most of which we don't report because it's not important enough. The writers are saying: this is pretty much all we've got. I'm not sure if that's important enough to mention, but it might be. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cryptic C62. Good to see you here.

"Paragons" and "old and sick": fixed.
"Is there a non-trivial difference between joining and supporting a rebellion?" His father and an uncle gave their moral support for one rebellion. Another uncle of his actively joined the rebellion. That's why we used "joining" and "supporting".
But the uncle who joined the revolution must necessarily have supported it. Thus, shortening "joined or supported" to just "supported" is not incorrect, and it is less likely to result in the reader thinking "That seems a bit redundant. What's the difference?" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to answer this one: you're right. I removed the redundant word. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless these two individuals are somehow noteworthy in their own right, I don't think that a person's godparents make for encyclopedic material" It made more sense before I removed huge pieces of the article and removed them to the talk page. They gave far more information Caxias' ancestry and his grandfather's life. I kept them in case in the future a researcher or another editor has interest on working wih that information. I kept the information that his grandparents were his godparents because both are mentioned later on the article. His grandmother, who possibly educated him and his grandfather, an officer who remained loyal to the crown and to the law and served as a role model to him.
Fair enough, struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I find this sentence somewhat peculiar since the next section begins by describing the subject's enlistment at the age of five." Another editor correctly remarked on the talk page that it made little sense that we claimed that there is little information about Caxias prior to age 36 but then there are several sections on this article talking about his life prior to age 36. But here is the problem: what looks full of info in an article looks mediocre at best on a 400pg book. All biographies of Caxias spend 80% of their pages talking about him after he went to Maranhão. The reason is that there is simply not enough information about what he did before. It is known that he fought for three years in the Cisplatine War, but exactly where? What did he do there? There are no surviving letters or memories of this period. All that has been used as source was taken from official documents ("Cadet Lima e Silva was removed to X base" Why? We don't know). However, I opted to remove this information since it won't matter. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mark Arsten I just read through the article and while I'm not experienced with the FA criteria, I think the article is pretty solid. I made a few small changes to the prose, overall it was in pretty good shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum. This isn't bad, but it's still a bit rough in too many places. A few examples:

Birth and childhood

"He may have learned to read and write from his grandmother, Ana Quitéria." Unidiomatic: "He may have been taught to read and write by his grandmother, Ana Quitéria."

Military education

"A young man of regular features, Luís Alves was of average height, and had a round face, brown hair and brown eyes." What has any of that to do with his military education?

Independence of Brazil

"Luís Alves would normally have begun the Fourth year at the Royal Military Academy sometime in March 1822." Should be "some time", not "sometime".
"On 18 January 1823, Pedro I created the 'Emperor's Battalion', a handpicked elite infantry unit ...". Why is Emperor's Battalion in scare quotes?
"During the Bahia campaign, high ranking officers mutinied against Labatut ...". Missing hyphen: should be "high-ranking".

Balaiada

"For his achievement, Luís Alves was promoted on 18 July 1841 to brigadier". Rather awkward: "For his achievement, Luís Alves was promoted to brigadier on 18 July 1841".

Liberal rebellions of 1842

"... he was appointed as military commander of Minas Gerais". He wasn't appointed as, he was appointed.

War of the Ragamuffins

"When the republican secessionist rebellion known as War of the Ragamuffins began in Rio Grande do Sul in 1835 ...". Missing "the", as in "the War of the Ragamuffins".
"Caxias had made a short trip to Rio Grande do Sul in 1839 to inspect the war effort against the Ragamuffins". How do you inspect a war effort?
"A year later, Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas resigned after he quarreled with Pedro II". The subject, "Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas", does not match "he".

Platine War

"The army commanded by Caxias crossed into Uruguay in September 1851." Was there another army commanded by someone else?
- Always glad for your help, Malleus. Lecen, I'm starting a new project and my time is really limited these days ... I have no spare time for settling disputes, so if you and Malleus start yelling at each other, I'm out of here. Malleus, I'm not 100% sure I agree that I was wrong on some of these after looking them up as best I can ("some time" is less common in AmEng, except in sentences like "He waited for some time", and constructions like "Honório Hermeto and the saquaremas resigned after he ..." are okay with Chicago, although I think it's a little better with "his"), but otherwise, I'm quite happy with all your suggestions, and I'm implementing them now. Lecen, I don't think I've seen descriptions of height, eye color and hair color in our bios; usually we let the image suffice. What's the shortest description you're comfortable with? - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know, there are other FAs that give physical description such as in Augustus ("He was unusually handsome ... He had clear, bright eyes ... His teeth were wide apart, small, and ill-kept; his hair was slightly curly and inclining to golden; his eyebrows met. His ears were of moderate size, and his nose projected a little at the top and then bent ever so slightly inward. His complexion was between dark and fair. He was short of stature ..."), Queen Victoria ("Victoria was physically unprepossessing—she was stout, dowdy and no more than five feet tall—but she ..."), etc... I wasn't aware that we are not allowed to do that anymore. --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And do they do that in a section entitled Military education? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm just saying that I don't remember seeing detailed descriptions in any of this year's Milhist bios at FAC. "A handsome young man of average height, he was considered ..." would be fine. Readers can see the brown hair and eyes in the image in Failed presidencies of the Council of Ministers. Malleus, we can rename the section if you like, but I can't see a place to move the description; that's when he looked like that. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        They don't have a section called "military education". They do it in a section called "Legacy" (see Queen Victoria) and you could ask the same question to DrKiernan: "What does her physical description has to do with the Legacy section?". In my case, I did it because the section describes the moment he became an adult and acchieved full maturity. And I also wasn't aware that I have to follow closely other Milhist bios. --Lecen (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't have to do anything other than to explain what the duke's appearance has to do with his military education. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I changed the subsection title to "Adolescence". I also shortened the description as I mentioned above, but this is just a recommendation, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I had to revert it. It doesn't make any sense saying that I'm not allowed to give his description on this section or any other. Worse: that I have to change the name of the section because of that. --Lecen (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I don't think the description is an issue so far, that was just a recommendation. On the subsection title, see below. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's an issue for me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, if the subsection title is "Adolescence", does this work for you? "A handsome young man of average height, he was considered ..." - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't demand that the changes I suggest are made if a reasonable counter-case can be made. And I'm not about to start yelling at anyone, but I do think that the prose is (or was, I haven't looked at your changes or the whole article yet) a little on the rough side. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for spending time on this. I made the changes I think you were asking for except for that one question to Lecen, and I've just changed around that last sentence to: "After Honório Hermeto quarreled with Pedro II a year later, he and the saquaremas resigned." - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much better, at least in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the subsection we're talking about, in full:

On 22 May 1808, Luís Alves was enlisted at the age of five as a cadet in the 1st Regiment of Infantry of Rio de Janeiro.[9][19] Historian Adriana Barreto de Souza explained that this did "not mean that he began to serve as a child, the connection to the regiment was simply honorific", his perquisite as the son of a military officer.[3][9] This infantry regiment was informally known as the "Lima [family] Regiment" because so many members of the family served in it, including his father and grandfather.[20]

In 1811, Luís Alves moved with his parents from his grandparents' farm to Rio de Janeiro and was enrolled at the Seminário São Joaquim (Saint Joachim's School).[9][21] On 4 May 1818, he was admitted into the Royal Military Academy.[22] On 12 October 1818, he was promoted to the rank of alferes (equivalent to a second lieutenant today), and to lieutenant (nowadays first lieutenant) on 4 November 1820.[22] A young man of regular features, Luís Alves was of average height,[2][23] and had a round face,[24] brown hair and brown eyes.[2][23] He was considered a very reasonable[25] and honest person.[26] Historian Thomas Whigham described him as someone who "learned the art of giving orders early in life. Immaculate in his dress, he was soft spoken, polite, and smoothly in control of himself. He seemed to radiate calm composure and authority."[27]

The entire course (which ran from the First to Seventh year) in the Royal Military Academy was only mandatory for artillerymen and engineers. To graduate as an infantryman, Luís Alves only needed to take classes of the First and Fifth year, which he did in 1818 and 1819, respectively. He was allowed to skip the non-obligatory years.[28] In spite of the fact that they were optional for infantrymen like himself, he chose to take classes of the Second year in 1820 and the Third year in 1821.[29] The subjects he studied in the Royal Military Academy ranged from arithmetic, algebra and geometry to tactics, strategy, camping, fortification in campaign and terrain reconnaissance.[30] Though an accomplished student, the young lieutenant was often reprimanded for bullying new students.[31]

Note that none of the first paragraph and only the first half of the second paragraph are about his military education. I agree with Malleus that that's not the right title for this subsection. Since this subsection covers his life from ages 8 to 18 (with a brief reference to age 5), "Adolescence" would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose it. It's not about his teenage years, but about his early military career. I know where this is heading to and what Malleus Fatuorum really wants. If he was smart enough, he would have ignored my nomination, since he doesn't review all nominations. He picked this one for one sole reason. Let's finish this once and for all. Malleus Fatuorum, you may place your "oppose". --Lecen (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm done here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. Lecen's demonstrable inability to deal with criticism is something the FAC delegates have to deal with, not me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read this article a couple of times in the last few months, the article is looking very good in my view. Astynax and Lecen worked very hard on this one, well done. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read the article and I find that it is well-written and very informative. It is structured in a well-done fashion and has no bias. It clearly envelopes the life of D. Luís Alves and covers all important topics on the duke's life. The article is well sourced and I support its candidacy for featured article status. {Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment: Reviewing Criteria #3--Media

I counted 8 portraits of Luis Alves. Overkill? His father was an important influence--can we get a pic of Francisco? Could the article benefit from a family tree?
Captions are fine per WP:CAPTIONS.
Question about public domain: the description page at commons for File:Angela fuerriol gonzalez 1832.jpg indicates that the image was published in 1832, but the source O Duque de Caxias was published in 2003. How do we know if the image was originally "published" in 1832? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lionelt. Good to see you here. There is one picture for each section, although the early ones have none. I didn't add a picture of his father because I plan to create his own article (as a former regent he had a certain importance historically). Do you really think there is the need to for a family tree? After all, the article only mentioned his father and paternal uncles.

The book "O Duque de Ferro" ("The Iron Duke"; not "Duque de Caxias", I made a mistake, sorry) was originally published as two separate books: "O Duque de Ferro" and "Novos aspectos da figura de Caxias" in the early 20th century. The oval pictue of Angela Fuerriol Gonzalez was not published in 1832, but created in that year. All it says was that it was made by a person called "Odogerti" in 1832. This person has certainly died a long time ago. All pictures used on this article (with the sole exception of the last one) were made in Caxias' lifetime. The lithographies seen in the Paraguayan War sections were in fact published by news magazines. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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