Talk:Brazilian military junta of 1930

Image for President Luís
I changed the image from the first, to the second as above, and was reverted with the following comment:

There is a reason so many other pages use the image I used, including his own article page - its far superior in quality.

Perhaps you could also explain how a greyscale image can be oversaturated?

I understand the point about the sash, but the quality of the image is so bad, I think it's not sensible to use it.

Other editors opinions are encouraged. (Hohum @ ) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe you have misinterpreted my summary a bit. For starters, when I said oversaturate, I was not referring to the principle of photography, rather referencing how much it has been used on Wikipedia. This is the reason I cited Wikimedia commons, pointing out how much the greyscale image has been used.


 * You continuously mention how poor of a quality the image I implemented is. By definition, it does not violate any of the criteria in reference to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY.


 * I agree 100% with you that the image you have selected supersedes my image in quality. However, with 7 pages using this image (File:Washington Luís (foto).jpg) and at least one page (1926 Brazilian presidential election) using some form/crop of the photograph, it goes without saying that nearly all articles portray Luís (on the en wikipedia at least) in the same photo. If not the one I chose (the one where you put the caption "Low quality"), which at least has the stash in it, then at least some other photograph with the plethora that is available. It would be uncanny for nearly all articles on the en wikipedia to portray the former president in the same picture. The entire Luís category is almost never used on the en wikipedia, except for the one you are pushing. I mean not to start a debate, but I feel my argument has been thoroughly supported and I would be happy to hear anything you have to add. FredModulars (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I don't see a wikipedia guideline/policy etc. suggesting using less popular images just because other articles use another one though. Hopefully other editors will give their opinion. 07:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well yes, because it seems obvious, to me at least. This argument has been made in regards to the Brazilian monarch Pedro II, and there have been many people in the past (including me) who argued for a higher quality image to be placed in his biography. The reason most people a few years ago were denied was that there are so many pictures of said person and the different pictures were being put in articles split off from his.


 * I don't understand how it would be beneficial to the reader of an encyclopedia to go to any page describing a head of state or any person of importance and see the same image for every single instance they appear. You wouldn't want to see the same painting of George Washington or the same picture of Winston Churchill everywhere you go, even if there is the one we are all accustomed to. The main goal of any image is to make the subject recognizable and on display, which the one I selected does perfectly. As I said, if not the one I chose, not the greyscale one either. FredModulars (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Correction, not "perfectly", the image I selected just does the job as any other image would. The main point I'm trying to make is (1) that low quality doesn't really matter since it would be an opinion and not going directly the official MOS and (2) that common sense says that it wouldn't be smart to have the same image everywhere for the same person in an encyclopedia or anywhere for that matter. FredModulars (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Part 1

 * The coalition advocated reform to address the below-average working conditions of women and children, advocating the adoption of a national Labor Code, and supporting education, hygiene, diet, housing, and recreation. Sentence would probably read better if you started with the perceived problems that the coalition wanted to fix and then the specific measures that they proposed to address these issues.
 * Changed to "The coalition advocated reform to education, hygiene, diet, housing, recreation, and working conditions. Their plans would include agricultural schools, a national Labor Code, a minimum wage, and industrial training centers; many of their promises would be realized after Vargas took power in 1930."
 * Who is Dantas? If he's not important enough to say who he is I would rewrite the sentence not to mention him.
 * Changed to below sentence.
 * Despite Pessoa's death being attributed to private and public affairs what is that supposed to mean?
 * His death was the result of affairs in both his private and political life. I changed "attributed to" to "a result of". (Changed to below)
 * But what does it mean "affairs in both his private and political life"? That's a really vague statement (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

For the above two issues, I have found the information about the Army's General Staff is cited from "Parada e desfile duma vida de voluntârio do Brazil." I can't access that and don't have any more information regarding support from the EME, so I have had to remove that. For the ultimatum, I've looked into Correio da Mania archives through the Biblioteca Nacional and can't find anything that doesn't contradict with the NYT proclamation and the limited information from other sources. I've had to remove that detail as well. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One possible rephrase to address the above three issues and improve conciseness: On 26 July 1930, Vargas' running mate João Pessoa was assassinated, which imbued the opposition with a revolutionary climate and prompted Vargas and his allies to instigate a revolution on 3 October 1930.
 * Changed to this.
 * One thing that's not explained is how the assassination led to the revolution several months later.
 * It was a little over two months. I don't think it would serve to detail the planning and details of the run up to the revolution, which is secondary to the coup and the junta, but if you'd like to I can add information on it. So, now that I have reread your comment, I'll explain how the two events are related.
 * Had to reword a lot of the paragraph, but it has been changed to "On 26 July 1930, Vargas's running mate João Pessoa was assassinated. The federal government was implicated in the assassination, and in the National Congress Rio Grande do Sul Deputy Lindolfo Collor asked, "Mr. President, what have you done to the governor of Paraíba [Pessoa]?" The revolutionaries used Pessoa as a martyr, and the development of a revolution would proceed, eventually instigated on 3 October 1930."
 * This is definitely an improvement, but:
 * "The federal government was implicated in the assassination" Does this mean the government was somehow complicit in the assassination? If so it should be explained. If it was simply accused of involvement it should be rephrased to clarify.
 * "the development of a revolution would proceed" this phrase is too vague to be adding useful info to the reader
 * It would be an improvement to rephrase as: "Pessoa became a martyr to the opposition, eventually sparking a revolution on 3 October 1930." But I'd prefer it to be further clarified how the two parts of that sentence are connected. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried to add more information to clear up the ties between Pessoa and the revolution, mainly how the federal government was blamed for the matter and how the opposition reacted to it.
 * Góes Monteiro—either explain who he is or just remove the sentence. I would keep Távora as he's discussed later in the article but it would be helpful to briefly state who he is.
 * Removed.
 * Many generals believed the President's continued stubbornness was useless what do you mean by "useless"?
 * I changed it to "not helping the situation."
 * Concerned about the military hierarchy what is meant by this?
 * Barreto was under Fragoso and Leal, so he logically wanted to not disrespect the chain of command.
 * Many were reluctant to sign it Many who? What did the ultimatum ask specifically and what was the threat if not accepted?
 * Removed that part. As for the ultimatum, there is a facsimile of it in the New York Times, excerpts of which used to be in the article. However, several sources speak of an ultimatum/manifesto/appeal/proclamation, with one of them speaking of manifestos being issued. Since none of them can be confirmed to be the same thing, I removed the text of the proclamation, but none of the sources actually describe the ultimatum. I thought just saying there was an ultimatum to the President would be enough, like an "x or else y," but I'll try to find more information if you'd like.
 * An ultimatum is indeed "X or else Y", which is why it's not very informative without saying what X and Y are. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * key members of the Army's general staff kind of vague, can we be more specific?
 * I'm not sure if you are looking for actual members, but I linked to the Army General Staff. I'd have to dig deeper to try and find those.
 * I think it might be better to name at least the most important members of the Army General Staff who are included in this sentence. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You still want the copyedit right? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for my delay. I'll deal with these issues soon, thank you. FredModulars (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Part 2

 * just from their faces, it became clear the situation was unsustainable and irreversible clear to whom? What does "unsustainable and irreversible" mean? If it means, "the president's position was untenable" that is a more clear wording.
 * Changed to that.
 * The president gathered those present and allowed them to leave Who are "those present"? His employees at the palace?
 * Yes, changed to "those present at the palace".
 * Who is Osvaldo Aranha?
 * Added that he was Vargas's longtime personal friend. He also held several political offices before and after the revolution, but I believe none at this point in time and none important to mention here.
 * Vargas, refusing to enter Rio de Janeiro until it was controlled by Rio Grande do Sul confused by this statement. Both Rio and Rio Grande do Sul are different Brazilian provinces? Why would one of them be controlling the other? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed to "by troops from Rio Grande do Sul."