Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazilian battleship São Paulo/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 18:54, 23 August 2011.

Brazilian battleship São Paulo

 * Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article for y'all. São Paulo's construction contributed to a rather expensive South American naval arms race, and the first year of her career was marked by a major mutiny. With rapid advances in naval technology (read: the introduction of super-dreadnoughts) and financial issues in Brazil, she quickly fell into disrepair and total obscurity. After repairs and a modernization in the United States, however, she participated in three more mutinies/revolutions. To top it off, the ship quite literally disappeared in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean while being towed to Europe for scrapping.

This article has taken a long time to get here. I originally got it to GA in April 2009 (link). It then sat around until March/April 2011, when I rewrote the whole thing with much better sources and got it through a Milhist A-class review (link). After adding a little more information from the Brazilian Navy's official histories – which only A through Gish were online in 2009 – I think it's just about ready for FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing bibliographic info for Barman Citizen Emperor
 * Added Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 16: why reverse the order here?
 * The journal title is being used in place of the author. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether "Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios" is italicized or not, and also what type of dash is used
 * Fixed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Scheina or Schenia?
 * Scheina, fixed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No references to ONI, Preston, Scheina "Argentina", either of the articles titled "The Brazilian Battleship "Minas Geraes"."
 * Sorry, those were holdovers from other articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Foreign-language sources should be notated as such
 * Chicago doesn't require noting foreign-language sources if the title is in the original language, see, page 24. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in how journal sources are punctuated - for example, compare Martins and Livermore
 * Filho is the Portuguese equivalent of "Jr.", and this is the way Chicago says to format a bibliographic name with a Jr. on the end. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not what I'm looking at - "3, no. 27 (2007): 74–77." vs "16: no. 1 (1944), 31–44.". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad, sorry! I've fixed this now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check ordering of References
 * Well now, that was silly of me. Fixed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check punctuation for Poggio
 * Changed comma to period. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "U.S. Government Printing Office" or just "Government Printing Office"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter, see United States Government Printing Office. Our article has "United States" for disambiguation, I believe. Thanks very much for the review; I'm very appreciative! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Media Review - The caption of the image File:Joao Candido.jpg mentions João Cândido Felisberto by name. I'd have to assume that he's the guy in black, but that might stand to be made explicit in the caption. I've made a few other tweaks to file description pages, but everything else is fine.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, Morgan doesn't say which on Felisberto is, so I can't really be sure which one he is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Yet another great article by Ed, I'm very happy to support it. - --Lecen (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I'm eager to give my full support to this article once a few issues are corrected, I hope you don't mind, Ed. Let's take a look at them:
 * Note 2 says that the 1893-85 rebellion had seccessionist goals. Not at all. Both the 1893-95 Rio Grande do Sul rebellion as well as the 2nd Naval Revolt joined forces to restore the monarchy. I believe you should simply drop the "seccessionist". There is no reason to mention the monarchist character of the rebellion (or civil war?).
 * Scheina explicitly calls the rebels in the south "secessionists" (p. 71), and in his examination of the naval revolt concludes that Mello let his intentions unclear and Saldanha was originally unclear before supporting a republic... do you have a better source that contradicts him? He only calls them secessionists once as a side point, and that war is not what he's focusing on, so I'm open to seeing him proved wrong. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't, sorry. My books are in my home in Fortaleza and I'm right now living in Brasília (until January). The best I can do is give you an on-line source . The page translates as: "In 1893, the monarchists of the Federalist Party took control of Rio Grande do Sul. Meanwhile, in Rio de Janeiro social-political situation worsened. Indeed, in the capital of the Republic, the President Floriano fell at odds with the commander of the Navy, of monarchist traditions. When, in September 1893, the Armada rebelled against the republican authorities, the monarchists, in the South took advantage of the confusion and advanced, taking Santa Catarina. With the support of rebel sailors they also planned to take the province of Paraná. In 1894, in a war of extreme violence, the republican gaúcho and florianist forces defeated the monarchists in Rio Grande do Sul. The Federalist Revolution had approximately 10,000 dead." Notice that the author regarded both the Federalist Revolution and the 2nd Naval Revolt as one rebellion. The source is page 569 of the book "História do Brasil: uma interpretação" written by Adriana Lopez and Carlos Guilherme Mota. It was published by SENAC São Paulo in the city of São Paulo in 2008. The ISBN is 978-85-7359-789-9
 * That's good enough for me. Either Scheina is wrong (worst case) or there's at least some scholarly debate on the issue, so I'll avoid it by removing anything about secession. No sense in getting something wrong, especially when it's a minor side point. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Soon after they arrived, the 5 October 1910 revolution began". It is not clear (until you read the remaining of the paragraph) that this happened in Portugal. Perhaps you should add something like "1910 revolution began, leading to the downfall of the Portuguese monarchy."
 * Yup, very true, nice catch. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Many Afro-Brazilian sailors were sons of former slaves, or were former slaves" Are you sure about this one? Slaves were no more than 5% of the Brazilian population in 1887. And more: the 1871 Free Womb Law declared that all children born from slaves after that year were freedmen. That means that the mutinied sailors needed to be at least... 41 years old at the time of the Revolt of the Lash! What I do know about the subject is that most sailors were very poor caboclos (descendants of White and Indians), Mulattoes (descendants of whites and Blacks) and Blacks. To claim that they were former slaves (21 years after the end of slavery!) isn't too much? Perhaps should read "Most, if not all, sailors came from the poor strata of the Brazilian society who were often mistreated and seen with contempt by their fellow officers. Although slavery had been abolished since the ennactment of the Golden Law (Lei Áurea) more than 21 years previously, the Brazilian sailors were treated no better than slaves."
 * Actually yes, this is supported by Morgan p. 37 (in a 1904 quote from Rio Branco) and Smallman p. 28 (used as a reference in BRAZILIAN BATTLESHIP Minas Geraes). The navy's enlisted men were estimated at being 50/30% black or mulatto (the other 20% being made up of 10/10 white and indigenous). According to Morgan, a lot of these men were shanghaiied from the lower classes, orphans placed into naval schools, or criminals. As you can imagine, a lot of them were black or mixed-race, and as nearly all of the black population were slaves before being freed, you can see how the sailors were either former slaves or their sons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed they were taken from the poor strata of the Brazilian society, but to call them ex-slaves is a little too much. Not all blacks were slaves in Brazil. In 1890, Blacks were 14.6% and Pardos (the White/Black/Indian descendants) were 32.4% of the population. That is, 47%. Three years earlier slaves were no more than 5%. See Empire of Brazil and Empire of Brazil. Are you sure Rio Branco or the author called them ex-slaves?
 * Morgan translated the quote and gives it as "For the recruitment of marines and enlisted men, we bring aboard the dregs of our urban centers, the most worthless lumpen, without preparation of any sort. Ex-slaves and the sons of slaves make up our ships' crews, most of the dark-skinned or dark-skinned mulattos." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "were embarked on 1 September to bring them to the centennial celebrations in Brazil". The 100-year celebration of Brazilian independence occurred in 1922, not 1920. They may have come to Brazil during the independence celebrations, but certainly not during the centennial.
 * This is... odd. I'm obviously wrong, as Ribeiro says it's in 1922 (and that makes more sense), but the New York Times article was published in September 1920? Right month, wrong year. I'm going to guess that there was a typo, but I can't be sure until I can check microfilm records of the NYT (so I'll be able confirm this in about a week and a half). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've done more source-searching, and the NGB and Whitley both say 1920. I'm thinking this was a mistake on Ribeiro's part and am fixing this now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't need that much. See this on-line article . The King came in 1920. Pedro II's remains were brought in 1921. The Centennial occurred in 1922.
 * I thought Pedro II was returned in 1920? Your Legacy article says that too... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "bôlo" is an archaic version of the modern Portuguese word "bolo" (cake).
 * Perhaps it had a different meaning in 1910? It's used in Morgan (p. 40) in a translation of a rebel message to the President of Brazil (quote: "... end the use of the whip, the bôlo [beating on the hand with a ferrule], and other similar punishments ...") Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "bolo" means and meant cake. But it also means and meant "beating on the hand with a ferrule". Try to imagine someone giving a piece of cake to someone and placing it in the hand of this very someone. Now try to picture someone hitting a person in the hand. This is where the expression "bolo" as a meaning of punishment came from. It's because it was similar to someone placing a piece of cake into a person's hand. Nothing more than a cruel expression. What I was trying to say is that there is no "^" in the word bolo. At least, not since the early 20th Century.
 * That's not an association I'd make (cake -> beating), but I think we can safely assume that the cultural and time differences are the culprit there. Thanks for showing me something new. :-) I don't see any problem with using the present-day form of the word seeing as it's not an exact quote, so I've changed it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * João Cândido, A.K.A. the "Black Admiral" is the tall smiling Afro-Brazilian to the right of a short man in black. See the photo at Commons. I marked João Cândido.
 * Thanks! I couldn't be sure without confirmation. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lecen, you already know how much I appreciate your reviews. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that helps. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice read, I've made a couple of tweaks but it is pretty close to standard. Couple of fly by comments - I'm backpacking for another week so may not be returning to this for a while.
 * "The rebels, believing an attack was imminent, sailed their ships out of Guanabara Bay and spent the night of 23–24 November there, only returning during daylight." Should "there" be "at sea"?.
 * The hexagonal formation of turrets is compared to a German design that has no superfiring turrets, but there is a later reference to superfiring turrets. Was the arrangement two for and aft and two amidships? (a diagram showing their layout would be nice if possible).
 * Nice photo of a US battleship, but not sure of the relevance as the Sao Paulo is not in shot.
 * Info on numbers of mutineers who stayed in Montevideo would be cool if it can be sourced.

Thanks  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "At sea" -- definitely, nice catch. @turrets, that was for an earlier (non-dreadnought) design. Is this not clear enough in the text? If so, that's not good and I'll have to rewrite it a bit. :-) @US battleship, it's more there to break up the text, and I don't have any images that are more relevant. @number of mutineers, I'm pretty sure I have a total number in one of my sources. I'll hunt it down tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those changes, but a little of the detail on the earlier designs might be worth keeping - if only to emphasise why the two dreadnoughts were so much more powerful than the three ships they cancelled.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent article, but: That's all that I have to say. Inter changeable | talk to me | what I've changed 00:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nine red links in the article and one in the footnotes are a few too many for a Featured Article.
 * I believe it would be more consistent with Wikipedia style standards if the page were moved to "São Paulo (Brazilian battleship)". The little arrow says I have the authority to do that, but I'm going to check first.
 * The career sections ought to be combined in to a single section, not just "Early Career", "Late Career", etc.
 * Expand the section on the ship's legacy. (Oh, wait - it doesn't exist. I suppose anything will be expansion!)
 * Since when having red links is considered bad to a featured article? --Lecen (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red links - see WP:REDLINK. Style - see WP:NCSHIP. Career - that's not normal practice in ship articles, and I prefer top-level headings over many third-level headers. Alternatively combining it all into one isn't helpful for the reader; there's a reason we have sectioning. Legacy - this isn't normal practice either unless the ship(s) were unusually famous. A good example of this can be seen in the Yamato-class battleship article. São Paulo, however, does not have this status, and none of my sources have anything that could contribute to such a section. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ed on all points, except that I don't take any position on general questions about linking. There are reviewers who have been irked at one time or another about lots of red links, because without any information, they didn't have a way to verify notability.  OTOH, any featured article on a Brazilian ship is necessarily going to touch on a lot of articles that haven't been written in the English Wikipedia yet, since most of the sources are in Portuguese. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed redlinks are important, and we shouldn't discriminate against potential FAs that are in areas of the pedia that still have unwritten articles. If anything I prefer an article about a Brazilian subject rather than one of more familiar topics.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank for all you and continue to do. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's a lovely article. I need more clarity and detail about the design of the ship, as built. Was it not completed on the hexagonal turret plan? If not, what was the layout? On a lighter note, I saw some suggestions about the ship's eventual fate which were interesting. --John (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The ship was not completed with the hexagonal turret plan (see File:Minas Geraes-class battleships.jpg). Should I just remove the information from this article and include it only in the class article, where most of the design information traditionally goes?
 * Yeah, I've seen that webpage before. Something about 'aliens needed a WWI battleship for a museum, but couldn't be seen while taking it, so they took Sao Paulo in the middle of a storm'. It's absolutely ridiculous, but the webpage did have scans of a 50s magazine article by Alan Villiers on the disappearance... which reminds me that I've always meant to buy the book that article was taken from (Posted Missing). Hopefully Amazon's seller will have that to me in a few days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I read that book once years ago as I realized with some delight when I started to edit this article. I suggest adding something brief to the article to clarify its final layout. Unfortunately the book I was hoping to use to reference this article, Peter Padfield's Battleship, can't be found so I am relying on the (perfectly adequate but unverifiable to me) existing sources. --John (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping it will allow me to flesh out the disappearance paragraph, as the only major sources right now are the newspapers emailed to me by User:Bellhalla way back during the 2009 GAN. Padfield is a pretty good author; I bought his Maritime Dominion a few months back and greatly enjoyed it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am pissed off because I don't recall lending it to anybody and I can't find it. So, either it is in storage or I lent it to somebody then forgot about it. The joys of growing old. Nice edits, I think I now support. --John (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lost quite a few books through lending; the only one I remember is The Original Shannara Trilogy omnibus to my Dad. The problem is six years after I let him borrow the book, he still hasn't read it. Thanks for the support – and as an fyi, I'm planning on adding a bit back on the original design, but hopefully not so detailed that it becomes confusing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * This sentence appears twice in the background section: Newspapers and journals around the world speculated that Brazil was acting as a proxy for a naval power which would take possession of the two dreadnoughts soon after completion, as they did not believe that a previously insignificant geopolitical power would contract for such powerful armament.
 * Fix this: name="OfficialPaulo"/>|group=N}}
 * Can we get a few paragraphs of description? Nothing in the infobox is sourced in any way.
 * No bullets in the infobox.
 * Allow triple conversions for knots and nautical miles by using 12 nmi . Don't specify the output and it will automatically triple convert.
 * Provide a conversion for 37 mm.
 * Link ranks like 2nd lieutenant, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All of these should be fixed (the first one thanks to John). I sourced the infobox instead of providing a description, but I think we've had discussions before on that topic. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed we have, you evil man who doesn't love the technical side of these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I don't love that side. ;-) That's not the reason I don't include them in the individual ship articles, though. I just feel that it duplicates what's in the class article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd source review - no offence Nikkimaria, but I felt you missed something.


 * You probably already know this, but citations should for consistency reasons use templates in all or none cases. See EN 55.
 * Be consistent in whether you include US states in publisher locations.
 * Martins (2007) seems duplicated in the reference section.
 * It's impossible to tell who authored "Brazil," Latin America: A Naval History 1810–1987 and Latin America's Wars as you give no author description, only authormasks.
 * EN 32: the title of the newspaper piece is "Europe Stirred By Lisbon News," not "Europe Stunned By Lisbon News."
 * Perhaps link The Times on the first occurrence?
 * EN 25 and 51 ought to be merged as they seem to point to the same source in the reference section.
 * Online sources (newspapers like NYT for example) behind paywalls should be notated as such.

I had a quick look at the few sources that I could access without paying (EN 31, 32, 42, 53, 54 and 56), and they all verified the text in the article. No issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing. -- Eisfbnore  &bull; talk  19:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No templates are used, afaik.
 * The one state is fixed.
 * Martins was a copy/paste error, I think; thanks!
 * It's not impossible to tell. Authormasks tell you that the same person authored all the works.
 * The title is fixed – that was a good catch.
 * Now linked, as is The New York Times.
 * Fixed dup. refs.
 * There is no newspaper that is behind a paywall, as far as I know. All of the NYT sources are pre-1923 and are therefore free to view. You may have to register an account, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, Ed; please have a look at EN 55, which uses a cite news template. Also, I know that authormasks can be used to avoid repetion; however, you must write out the author's full name on the first occurrence before you start using the masks. At present, you use authormasks on every occurrence, which makes it impossible to tell who really authored the works. Eisfbnore   &bull; talk  22:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and added Scheina, Robert L. to his first listed work in the biblio (I found his name through GBOOKS). Eisfbnore   &bull; talk  08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


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