Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive2


 * 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 20:55, 20 September 2011.

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

 * Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) and  &bull; Astynax talk 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it has all qualities necessary and required. It's a fairly small article, about a child who did not live past the age 2, but who nonetheless had enouch impact in the history of a country. Lecen (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment.
 * Glad to see this back at FAC. There isn't much to do in the current article, that I can tell, judging from the last FAC.  There was a request to remove the translation "Alphonse", which has been done (at least, I didn't get a hit on it).  There was a comment at the end, "You don't find the report of the baptism and diagnosis of hereditary epilepsy useful then?", although earlier this was labeled as just a suggestion and not a request ... still, it probably wouldn't hurt to at least give those some consideration.  The writing looks good at first glance. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dank. Good to see you around. Not only Afonso, but his father Pedro II and his grandfather Pedro I had both epilepsy. According to Pedro I's biographies, they inherited from the Spanish Bourbons. However, Pedro II's biographer Roderick J. Barman implies that it could have come from the Austrian House of Habsburg (who was well known to marry to Bourbons too). Nonetheless, I added a small piece of text: "His death revealed that Afonso suffered from epilepsy just as his father before him". Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - beautifully written and engaging. Can the nominator confirm that "monarchial" is an accepted WP:ENGVAR variant of "monarchical". Same for "skeptical" (I write "sceptical"). Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Lecen writes in BritEng (although a search for "our" and "ise" came up empty). AmEng is skeptical (always), BritEng is sceptical (always ... I think). - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a native English speaker would say "on the monarchial institution"; it would be commoner to say "on the institution of monarchy" or "on the future of the monarchy". The peer review tool doesn't pick up any spelling conflicts. DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Lecen and I have attempted to be consistent in using USEng in the articles related to the Empire of Brazil. "Monarchial institution" is correctly spelled for USEng, and I can attest to the phrase being used in lectures (it is easier to pronounce), popular histories and textbooks. "Monarchical" is also a correct variant in USEng. &bull; Astynax talk 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Garner's says that monarchial is "invariably inferior" to monarchical; also, I agree with DrKiernan on the point. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is correctly spelled, is used by native English speakers, and by English-speaking authors (and evidently widely allowed by the guidelines under which their editors operate). &bull; Astynax talk 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Check grammar of [Endnote] A
 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: The wording of the endnote has been changed, and I see that Lecen has hyphenated the ISBN's to be consistent. Out of curiosity, is there a MOS preference for hypenation of ISBN numbers? The use and placement of hyphens in ISBNs seems to vary from book to book. I'm just wondering. &bull; Astynax talk 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does very. The only requirement I'm aware of is that you be consistent in whether any hyphens are included, regardless of their placement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The hyphens contain information. The first set of numbers is usually a single digit and denotes the language of publication, the second set denotes the publisher, the third the book, and the fourth and final number (always a single digit) is a control. DrKiernan (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I am aware of how ISBNs are formatted, but when searching on the MOS, could not find any indication of whether or not hyphens were to be employed (or even if consistency was demanded), and had assumed that we would use the format as given in the publication itself. The only thing I could find regarding hypenation was an ongoing debate at WT:ISBN. &bull; Astynax talk 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I'm afraid I don't quite see the same "beautifully written" prose that Graham does, and I find the constant switching between emperor and monarch to be rather jarring. A few other examples of the problems I see:
 * 1) "With fatherhood, the self-esteem of the insecure and shy 19-year old Emperor Pedro II improved, allowing him to become more mature and expansive." What does "mature and expansive" mean exactly, and it what way did the birth allow him to become whatever it means?
 * 2) "Afonso's early death, however, prompted questions about the monarchy's future." What's that "however" doing there?
 * 3) "... royal childbirths were attended by both the emperor and court." Why "both"?
 * 4) "Soon after Afonso's birth, the prince was carried in the arms of his father, who proudly presented the newborn to the throng which had gathered in the palace." Very awkward. And why is "prince" not capitalised here when it was in the lead?
 * 5) "... was heir to the throne and entitled 'Prince Imperial.. I don't think "entitled" can be the right word here.
 * 6) "However, it was the Emperor who displayed the most interest ...". The most interest in what?
 * 7) "... as is discernible in a letter dated 21 December 1846". Discernable by whom?
 * 8) "He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country ...". Shouldn't that be "of a country"?
 * 9) "Emperor at the age of 5 and declared of age and fit to begin ruling at 14, Pedro II had been an awkward and shy adolescent who had become suspicious of everyone around him." Too many words. How about "... an awkward and shy adolescent suspicious of everyone around him"?
 * 10) "Pedro II found in the birth of Afonso, for the first time since his early childhood, the reassurance of a close and permanent bond to someone else." He didn't find it in the birth, he found it in Afonso.
 * 11) "It allowed him to firmly establish his authority as a monarch". What is the "it" referring to there?
 * 12) "The marriage thereafter became a happy one, aided by her faithful dedication, his development of a more stable and mature character ...". We seem to be over-egging the pudding here with yet another reference to his personality change.
 * 13) "... a country that had nearly disintegrated during his childhood with rebellions that had flared throughout its provinces". That "with" linking word really doesn't work.
 * 14) "Afonso was healthy, and as eldest son of Pedro II ...". Shouldn't that be "as the eldest son"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replies: Thank you for your comments. I've taken the liberty of changing your list from unordered to numbered so that I can respond without interleaving (which I personally find confusing):


 * What does "mature and expansive" mean exactly, and it what way did the birth allow him to become whatever it means? · When referring to a person, "mature" means to have reached the adult stage of development emotionally, physically and/or mentally. When referring to a person, "expansive" means to be open, extroverted or outgoing (antonyms: "reserved" or "shy"). I'm personally not sure the sources' explanation of the reasons fatherhood produced this change in Pedro II's personality are germane to this article (though of interest in Pedro II of Brazil).
 * I know what the individual words mean, but I can no logic in improved self-esteem allowing anything. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does "With fatherhood, the insecure and shy 19-year old Emperor Pedro II became more mature and gregarious." work for everyone? (And the trouble with "expansive" is that it can mean gregarious, or confident, or generous ... I chose one, maybe the wrong one.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Afonso's early death, however, prompted questions about the monarchy's future." What's that "however" doing there?" · This sentence was originally part of the preceding paragaraph, and I assume the "however" was used to contrast the negative consequences of Afonso's death with the positive effects produced by his birth and short life. I've removed it.
 * "... royal childbirths were attended by both the emperor and court." Why "both"? · "Both" is used to give the sense that this was a formal occasion that demanded that the Emperor and the court attend the birth in conjunction (not one or the other, but jointly).
 * "Both" is unequivocally redundant. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "... royal childbirths were formal occasions, attended by the court."? (I doubt the readers would assume the emperor didn't attend, both because an emperor is generally included in the concept of "court", and because he's the father.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Soon after Afonso's birth, the prince was carried in the arms of his father, who proudly presented the newborn to the throng which had gathered in the palace." Very awkward. And why is "prince" not capitalised here when it was in the lead? · Fixed.
 * "... was heir to the throne and entitled 'Prince Imperial.'". I don't think "entitled" can be the right word here. · Lecen has changed the word to "styled", although "entitled" is also correct (meaning "3. Give (someone) a specified title expressing their rank, office, or character".
 * "However, it was the Emperor who displayed the most interest ...". The most interest in what? · I've attempted to clarify.
 * "... as is discernible in a letter dated 21 December 1846". Discernable by whom? · Clearly, Barman's reference is to a reader of the letter. Must we specify that in the sentence (as in: "according to historian Rodrick Barman, readers of a letter dated 21 December 1846 to Pedro II's sister Maria II of Portugal can discern...")?
 * I think you need to rewrite that sentence, as it looks as if it's you who's doing the discerning and as such looks like original research. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country ...". Shouldn't that be "of a country"? · Pedro II was a child at the time, with most Brazilians still supporting Pedro I (the author of the nation's independence) and many actively working for his return to the throne. Only eventually would Pedro II become a symbol "of" the nation. It may seem a minor difference, but "for" is more accurate.
 * "Emperor at the age of 5 and declared of age and fit to begin ruling at 14, Pedro II had been an awkward and shy adolescent who had become suspicious of everyone around him." Too many words. How about "... an awkward and shy adolescent suspicious of everyone around him"? · Agreed and changed.
 * "Pedro II found in the birth of Afonso, for the first time since his early childhood, the reassurance of a close and permanent bond to someone else." He didn't find it in the birth, he found it in Afonso. · Perhaps, but according to the references, the birth of a male heir itself (as well as fatherhood) was the trigger. To say he "found it in Afonso" goes beyond the point and implies some activity on Afonso's part. Pedro II eventually found much joy and comfort in the activities and presence of his children, but Afonso's birth was a watershed that changed his personality.
 * Then it makes no sense. It isn't possible to have a "close and permanent bond" with an event. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I've seen people develop close and personal bonds with Arbcom cases. But I agree with Malleus here ... that is, I think there's a general preference, at least at the A-class and FAC level, not to go into detail about exactly what was in someone's head and where it came from, even if the sources are very sure on the point.  We can report that his behavior appeared to change ... but you've already done that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "It allowed him to firmly establish his authority as a monarch". What is the "it" referring to there? · Clarified.
 * "The marriage thereafter became a happy one, aided by her faithful dedication, his development of a more stable and mature character ...". We seem to be over-egging the pudding here with yet another reference to his personality change. · His character change played an essential part in improving what had been a very cold marriage.
 * I still think you're over-egging the pudding with the wordy "development of a more stable and mature character". Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "... a country that had nearly disintegrated during his childhood with rebellions that had flared throughout its provinces". That "with" linking word really doesn't work. · Changed.
 * "Afonso was healthy, and as eldest son of Pedro II ...". Shouldn't that be "as the eldest son"? · The phrase "as eldest son" (without "the") has long been used when referring to a legal position as heir. It is correct as it stands, but I have no objection should you or another editor wish to change it. &bull; Astynax talk 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further comments. That wasn't a complete list of prose issues, just some examples. Here are a few more:
 * "The future of the monarchy as an institution no longer mattered to him, and he thenceforth would concentrate 'all my forces and all my devotion to assuring the progress and the prosperity of my people'."
 * "The Empire would not survive him." Why "would not" as opposed to "did not"?
 * "Soon after Afonso's birth, Pedro II carried the newborn Prince and proudly presented him to the throng gathered in the palace." There's clearly some redundancy there with "soon after Afso's birth" and "newborn". You could usefully drop the opening "Soon after Afonso' birth".
 * "... nor did he attempt to encourage acceptance of a female ruler among the political elites". Why "elites" rather than "elite"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is what historian Roderick J. Barman precisely said (pages 110 and 111 ):
 * "The passage of the years and the growing of a beard were not of themselves sufficient to instill maturity. The most powerful cause for the changes was probably the experience of fatherhood. D. Teresa Cristina gave birth to a son, christened D. Afonso, at the end of February 1845. In accord with the practice of the Portuguese monarchy, the delivery took presence of the emperor, members of the court, and public officials. "As soon as the empress had given birth the emperor, who had not quitted her side for an instant, took the young prince in his arms and, showing him to the people around him, said with emotion: 'Gentleman, it is a prince whom God...' a which point sobs choked his voice." Pedro II was experiencing what one study has termed "engrossment". Fathers present at the birth of their first born "develop a feeling of preoccupation, absorption and interest in the newborn. The father is gripped and held by this particular feeling and has a desire to look at, hold, and touch the infant." "In addition,... he feels increased sense of self-steem and worth when he is engrossed in his infant." Another study endorses this conclusion. "Being nurturant, affectionate, and loving may be good for fathers as well as for babies. The opportunities to express these emotions to their children may allow men to become more expressive and gentle in their relationships with other people too." In Pedro II's case, the birth of a son broke through his emotional detachment from other humans, gave him a sense of rootednessm abd built up a feeling of self-worth. Three more children -D. Isabel, D. Leopoldina, and D. Pedro- were to follow in 1846, 1847, and 1848, respectively. Their offspring brought Pedro II and D. Teresa Cristina together in a relationship affectionate on his side and adoring on hers. Fatherhood gave the emperor the emotional security and the self-confidence so conspicuously missing during his childhood and adolescence, and these qualities were essential for the fulfillment of his duties as monarch. The change in personality wrought by fatherhood was accelerated and reinforced by the success of an official visit to the sourthen provinces of Brazil undertaken eight months after D. Afonso's birth"
 * Another historian, Jeffrey D. Needell (who was not used in this article), reached the same conclusion as Barman :
 * "He [Pedro II] had emerged from the imperial villa an unusually mature prince who had successfully manipulated the Empire's elder statesmen, putting them against one another, shirking dependence upon on party over another, defying the personal authority of such formidable chieftains as Antônio Carlos and Honório. This initial instinct for independence and entitlement matured, year after year, into a sense and a practice of confident political mastery and a growing sense of a personal, "civilizing" mission. All of these were doubtless strengthened by traditional measures of adulthood; his marriage (in 1843) and fatherhood (1845-1848), as well as by the 1845-1846 trip he took to the provinces of the south, where he was free of the constant oversight of his customary entourage to act as he wished and to mingle without intermediaries."
 * Do you have any suggestion to what should be written in the article about this topic? --Lecen (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may butt in ... what question was that responding to, #10? - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that anything needs to be added rather than clarified, as this is an article about Afonso, not Pedro II. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replies:
 * "The future of the monarchy as an institution no longer mattered to him, and he thenceforth would concentrate 'all my forces and all my devotion to assuring the progress and the prosperity of my people'." · I presume that you noticed that the use of "my" is within the quoted material, so I am unclear as to what problem you see with the sentence.
 * My problem is that the sentence as currently constructed is ungrammatical, quotation marks or no. You need to recast it to avoid the jarring switch from third person to first person. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Empire would not survive him." Why "would not" as opposed to "did not"? · The fall of the Empire lay in the future, far beyond the scope of this article, even though Afonso's death indirectly contributed to that event.
 * There is no excuse for the subjunctive here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Soon after Afonso's birth, Pedro II carried the newborn Prince and proudly presented him to the throng gathered in the palace." There's clearly some redundancy there with "soon after Afso's birth" and "newborn". You could usefully drop the opening "Soon after Afonso' birth". · Changed.
 * "... nor did he attempt to encourage acceptance of a female ruler among the political elites". Why "elites" rather than "elite"? · The plural was used because in Brazil at the time there were multiple centers of power (i.e., the political establishment, the provincial planter "aristocracy", the military, and other groups). &bull; Astynax talk 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but together they formed the political elite. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Made a few changes. Is it better now? --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better I think. I realise that it must seem I'm being tough on this article, but it's a rather short narrative of a boy who died aged two, so I think it needs to be top notch. I was just reading through your changes and I came across this: "the nation was entering into an unprecedented era of prosperity"; as opposed to "entering out of"? I've fixed that now, but I'll read through the whole thing again over the weekend hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, at least for now. I'm very unconvinced by the quality of the prose and the dodging and weaving to try and persuade me that what is obviously ungrammatical is actually grammatical. I think the prose could fairly easily be fixed, but I don't think it is being fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Okay, one more on the todo list, I'll get to it this weekend, unless someone beats me to it (please!) - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. The article has been improved quite substantially during this review, and I think it now meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Spotchecks done on the use of Barman (2002). The citations support the article text, the quotes are accurate and no other sign of close paraphrasing. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I am still unhappy with the prose tone and especially with the lead section. Not so much ungrammatical but somewhat clunky in places. --John (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John, could you tell us exactly what is wrong? --Lecen (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the lead section isn't about the subject and needs to be rewritten. Here's another (random) example: "As was the custom of Portuguese sovereigns (from whom the Brazilian monarchy directly descended), royal births were attended by both the Emperor and court." A featured article shouldn't contain any sentences like this. --John (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are those the two only reasons to your oppose or are there others? If you let me know what are all the issues you've seen in the article I will address them so that you may feel confortable enough to support the nomination. Lastly, I'd like to thank you for having reviewed the article. --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph is one problem, and the overall prose quality is another. The quote I posted was an example of the second problem. --John (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Update I had a a hack at it, but I still think it needs more work. I may comment further. --John (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like your changes at all. "took from the Portuguese sovereigns they descended from" is ungrammatical. You've also introduced material which does not appear to be supported by the sources in "restored a sense of purpose" (as I understand, it wasn't restored it was new), and removed material that aids the clarity of the story. DrKiernan (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being honest. I strongly oppose the promotion of this article in its current state. --John (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You made several changes to the article and still "strongly oppose" it? --Lecen (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick ... DrKiernan is a solid copyeditor, and he's never given Lecen any slack, I don't see why his criticisms should shift your oppose to "strong". Also, I rather agree with his points. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. I moved to strong oppose because of this because I think if we are going to tell this story we need to tell it in context. This two-year-old is only notable because of his royal connections; it doesn't therefore make sense not to tell how the story ended. I still have concerns about the writing. DrK is quite right that the edits I made were not perfect, and I do not ever take offense at having my edits criticized. --John (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the correction. I'm sorry, but I agree that your edits weren't your usual good work, and I've noted that below.  I don't have a strong opinion either way on the thing that's got you upset; it doesn't hurt the article to include it, but on the other hand, if the reader wants to know about Pedro II, it's a click away. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John, you added an entire unsourced sentence into a FA nominee. That's why I removed it. However, neither the end of the empire nor Pedro II's exile has any importance here. No biographer has said that Afonso's death caused the downfall fo the monarchy. What they did say was that it was one of the primary reasons to why Pedro II stopped having hopes about the monarchy's future. Lastly, you have also removed several sentences that had (in my opinion) a negative effect in the overall text. Am I supposed to stay quiet, then? You must remember that the FAC is not supposed to be a war between nominators and reviewers. The entire idea is that reviewers should aid nominators, be friendly to them. So far, I did not oppose a single change (except for the last one) you made. --Lecen (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I undid most of my edits in response to Dank's comment below. The writing is clunky and the lead is too long and unfocused. There are also MoS compliance and spelling issues. "To harbinger" (while correct per my dictionary) is an example of the clunky English. We really need a complete rewrite by someone who can write English idiomatically. --John (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John, the entire article has been rewritten from top to bottom by both Dank and Malleus Fatuorum. Very little has been left of what I and Astynax wrote. If you're telling that the text is "clunky" that means that neither Dank and Malleus Fatuorum have done a good job. And if that's the case, I have no idea what I can do about it then. Even when I merely express my opinion here I'm met with great hostility. I tried hard to cooperate but that seems not have been enough. --Lecen (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am struggling still with reconciling the sentence "As was the custom with Portuguese sovereigns (from whom the Brazilian monarchy directly descended), royal births were formal occasions, attended by the court." with 1a, "...well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".


 * Per Manual_of_Style_(layout) images should generally be left on the default thumbnail size. Other than those two points I think it is ok now. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good one. "Generally", not always. Is that really an issue? The sentence you complained about it has been yet again changed by Malleus. --Lecen (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason the image sizes need to be hard-coded in contravention of MoS? --John (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Only two of them are larger, and only because they are wider than normal. If smaller, they would look odd. And there is no contravention of the MOS or else, a bunch of Featured Articles would have to be changed. See for example in Portal:Featured content. Which article is the main featured article? Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Take a look at the size of its pictures. --Lecen (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen, I'm definitely not an image guy, but just reading MOS:IMAGE and remembering what I've heard, I think John is right here, and I've restored his edits to the images (that is, the image size isn't fixed, below the lead). In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, some of the images are old and grainy, and you might not even be able to recognize them at a lower resolution.  I have no trouble figuring out what's in the images in this article ... and if someone has trouble seeing them, they can always click. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image size issue wasn't a show stopper but there needs to be a good reason in general to diverge from MoS guidance. I now support this promotion. --John (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John, my thinking about the second paragraph is: if this is an article about the life of a kid who died at age 2, then there's not a lot we can say ("And at 9 months, he started crawling ..."). I think we can trust the readers to understand that the article is actually about the relevance of the life and early death of this prince, in which case the second paragraph seems relevant to me.
 * Does anyone object if I lowercase "Prince" except where it's a title? There's no danger of misunderstanding "the young prince", and lowercasing honorifics, styles, offices and ranks (unless they're right in front of the name, or it's clearly the formal name of the office) is very much in style these days. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None from me, and I think the same logic applies to "Empire" and "Emperor". Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "ruling circles": that's not common language, but I'm not sure if I chose well ... I went with "political class". - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. A problem here is idiomatic English, which is why I wanted to see "political elite" rather than "political elites". Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: in most of the articles I see about royalty, for instance George II of Great Britain, the "II" disappears early in the article; here, "Pedro II" seems to go on for a while. If this is some kind of convention with Brazilian nobility, I have no problem with it, it's not that jarring, it just seems a little odd. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All books (including biographies) call him Pedro II from the beginning to the end. I simply followed their standard. Is that an issue? P.S.: Your edits are fine, I don't see any reason at all to complain. --Lecen (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay great. On Pedro II ... I don't know. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can some who has Barman's book check to see if the quote capitalizes "Emperor"? - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Barman wrote "emperor" with lower case. See here. --Lecen (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted two sentences from the last paragraph of Legacy, not because they were bad, but because you don't absolutely need them I think, and if you do want something there, I think it should be "meatier" ... it should answer questions about what happened, rather than simply suggesting that something was very wrong. But readers can always go to the article on Pedro II or other articles for that.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. My support is just slightly weak, because the article is (necessarily) short, but I don't want to be discouraging people from doing a good job with short articles on Brazilian royalty, and judging from the comments so far, this is a full and authoritative article on a very short life. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Qualification to my support: I don't like some of John's edits (but very much appreciate the others); the last version of the article that I can support is this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I obviously disagree, but I have undone my edits back to that one per your comment. --John (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the very first sentence of the lead: "Dom Afonso (23 February 1845 – 11 June 1847) was the heir apparent to the throne of the Empire of Brazil, bearing the title of Prince Imperial." Does that "bearing the title of" seem idiomatic to you? Added to which its placement suggests that the throne of the Empire of Brazil bore the title, not Afonso. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me which sentences do you believe should be improved? --Lecen (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could delete "bearing the title of Prince Imperial" without any harm ... it's a short article, the readers will see that soon enough. Also, I got a comment on my talk page that "Pedro II" throughout the article (as opposed to Pedro) doesn't sound right. It doesn't sound right to me either, but I've got this vague memory that I tried to remove the number after South American royalty once and was told it wasn't done. I can't find anything on this in my style guides ... anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence would be a start, and I've made my suggested improvement to the article. But tell me, after all of this navel gazing, why is "Dona" in italics when "Dom" isn't? Are we all looking at the same ball? Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I de-italicized Dona. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between Dom and Dona is that the former has been used in English (see John Chapman (priest)) while Dona so far hasn't. If you remove the italics readers will believe that that's actually the name of the person. I saw casual readers wondering in Empire of Brazil about "Princess Donna". I took me a few moments to realize that this reader was talking about Dona (Lady) Isabel, Pedro II's daughter. In other words, I believe Dona should be kept in italics. --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And thus you encapsulate very nicely why this article is unlikely to meet the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All I was trying to do is to share my thoughts on the subject, nothing more. --Lecen (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard and read "Dona" quite a bit in English. I have no objection to putting both Dom and Dona in italics, or neither of them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither should be in italics, but if one is then so should the other. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen I understand your concern about not italicizing Dona ... fortunately, the word occurs only once in this article, so you could link it, which would make it hard for people to read it as "Donna". On "Pedro II", since your experience is that the "II" is preserved in biographies and no one knows different (so far), it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, sorry, I just noticed that the name immediately after "Dona" is linked, so we're better off like it is now, not linked and not italicized ... people won't think "Dona" is part of her name when it's the only part not linked, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Status report: currently we've got 2 supports and 2 opposes just on prose ... not a position we should be putting the delegates in, and quite possibly my fault for not paying attention. I'll try to sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay John, I'm going through your edits now ... except I didnt look at the edits to images.
 * I did't follow the hatnote for d/m/y formats; I couldn't find any m/d/y formats.
 * You weren't happy with the capitalization in "had married only for reasons of State"; I changed it to "had not married for love".
 * I restored several of your changes to the lead.
 * I kept one part you threw out: "He decided to rule according to his conscience, regardless of the effect his policies might have on the monarchy, and became skeptical that the empire could endure beyond his lifetime. His daughter Isabel received no training for her role as potential empress, and no attempts were made to cultivate her acceptance within the country's political class." [see below] The ways in which Afonso's death weakened the empire seem worthy of the lead to me; is there some kind of compromise we can reach?
 * I made a slight tweak to the royals births sentence; I hope that's enough to address the problem you saw.
 * I restored your edits completely in the rest of the article (except for the image edits, which I don't know how to evaluate ... anyone?) Thanks for those. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just tightened the second paragraph; I hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen, John is right that we need something more in the last sentence, because the lead ends with "Pedro II's disinterest in protecting the imperial system ultimately led to its downfall" ... so we have to restore at least something about the downfall, what would you prefer? - Dank (push to talk) 04:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You could add the wikilink to Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil, which is an article entirely devoted to the subject. A reader who would wish to know how the monarchy fell could simply go straight to it. If we add more sentences about what happened when the monarchy fell or where Pedro II was sent after he was exiled the article will stop being about Afonso and it will be about something else. --Lecen (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I mean ... per WP:LEAD, anything in the lead has to be supported in this article, and that sentence isn't ... so either we need to remove the sentence from the lead (but everyone seems to be happy with it), or support what it says with some sentence in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition Lecen ... I like the link and the language, but could we add just a little more, including some of John's language? Maybe:  "and he was  deposed in a coup in 1889, marking the end of the Empire of Brazil." (The same citation could probably be used, but it might need an extra page number.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty much redundant to me, but feel free to add it. I won't oppose it. I will add the extra page to the source later. --Lecen (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Looks like we're all in agreement, or close enough. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable. It has good structure, and consistent citations. Images are appropriate and tagged correctly. The lead is a good summary, and the article stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


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