Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juan Manuel de Rosas/archive3


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2016.

Juan Manuel de Rosas

 * Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC) &bull; Astynax talk

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance with his enemies to crush Rosas. This article uses dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one available in any language. Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for its previous FAC; I wasn't catching everything then, but I see that a lot of helpful copyediting has been done, and I'm happier with this version. I can't really comment on questions of tone and NPOV, which I'm not in a position to judge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 *  ready to Support pending comments from those who know something about the subject. A good read. Are there no depictions in film etc? A character in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories is very clearly based on him in exile - the "Tiger of ..." somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * John, it's good to see you here. I'm afraid we have no Wikipedians with true knowledge of Platine history, except for me and Astynax. About your other comments, Rosas showed up in movies indeed. We left out pop culture facts on purpose, since there are already two articles focused on Rosas' legacy. We kept what was most important, as to maintain the article simple and straight forward. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything on films (which generally should not be referred to as "pop culture") in other articles - where? Even if there is, it should be summarized briefly here. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I couldn't find an equivalent section in other FA biographies, which seems that any mention in movies is optional. Since Rosas's appearances in other media is not vital to his character, I can't see the reason to add something here, especially because it would be pointless to add a line saying "Rosas appeared in X movie". What would that add to the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been several depictions in literature, films and television but almost entirely in Argentine media and much of it unabashedly partisan exploitation feeding on the ongoing historicity problem mentioned in the Legacy section. Although depictions of Rosas in literature and media might be appropriate for some sort of separate list linked to within the article's Legacy section, there is also the problem of finding coverage in reliable historical sources that establish the notability of these and their relevance to political and popular culture. If a RS comes to light that explores how Rosas has been depicted in media then I see no problem of including a mention, but I cannot recall coming across such material. &bull; Astynax talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnbod: The Sherlock Holmes story is Wisteria Lodge (1927), the second part of which is The Tiger of San Pedro, here for easy reference . Rosas is disguised as "Don Murillo".  Conan Doyle would have got the reference from W.H. Hudson. Far Away and Long Ago (Dent:London and Toronto:1918), pages 107-8, here: https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_EF0_AAAAIAAJ#page/n121/mode/2up .  Might it worth doing two lines as per "In fiction"? Ttocserp 09:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll support. I think it's pretty good.  And I believe you can add my name to Lecen and Astynax to those who have some "knowledge of Platine history" (sorry, had to get that off my chest!). Ttocserp 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Well written article on an important figure in South American history. It covers Rosas extensively and does so in an objective light, on par with the quality of other featured articles, such as Pedro I of Brazil, another of the great articles worked on by Lecen. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not yet supporting Always good to see another piece of work by Lecen. I'm not sure the prose is quite there yet; I've gone through as far as "Apogee and downfall" and picked up some points below:


 * It isn't clear who some of the quotes are from; e.g. 'Clemente López de Osornio, "a tough warrior of the Indian frontier who had died weapons in hand defending his southern estate in 1783."' If this is Lynch himself saying it, I'd expect it to be attributed in-line, e.g. "according to the historian John Lynch, "a tough warrior..."". If it is a contemporary quote, from Lynch, then it should be similarly attributed, e.g. "according to XXXX, "a tough warrior...". Ditto "in other words, "unbridled dictatorial powers"" etc.
 * "although it is thought that he was barred" - I'd prefer it to say who thinks he was barred, or just say "although he was probably barred" if that doesn't matter.
 * "owners of large landholdings (including the Rosas family) provided food, equipment and protection both for themselves and for families living in areas under their control. " - I didn't think the food and equipment made sense in relation to "themselves" - i.e. leave the other families out of it and you'd have "owners of large landholdings provided food, equipment and protection for themselves". It wouldn't make very such sense; who else would provide them with food and equipment?
 * "Shaped by the colonial society in which he lived, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority.[11] He was in this way merely a product of his time and not at all unlike the other great landowners in the Río de la Plata region." - this felt overly complex, and the "merely" felt a little condescending. Could it just read : "Like the other great landowners in the region, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority."?
 * " and acquired real property in the process. " - "real property" isn't a common phrase for most English readers. Would "real estate", "landholdings" or "lands" be more natural?
 * " Rosas, like many landowners... Like many landowners..." - repetitious, and I think the reader has probably got the idea by now!
 * "Colorados del Monte" ("Reds of the Mount") - just to check, is "reds of the mount" the standard translation? It read a bit oddly to me.
 * "At the end of the conflict, Rosas returned to his estancias with acquired prestige for his military service." - "with acquired prestige" read oddly to me. "having acquired prestige"? "respected for his military service"?
 * "He was granted the rank of cavalry colonel " - would "He was promoted to cavalry colonel" be simpler?
 * "By 1830, he was the 10th largest landowner in the province of Buenos Aires (in which the city of the same name was located)," - I thought the bits in brackets were superfluous; it would be my initial assumption as to where the province would be!
 * "300,000 head of cattle" - would "300,000 cattle" be simpler?
 * "with the severe deficits, large public debts and currency devaluation which his government inherited" - can you inherit a devaluation? It's an event, not an object. You could inherit the "impact of a devaluation" though.
 * " he improved revenue collection (while not raising taxes)" - the brackets here felt clumsy to me.
 * "the government's financial issues" - I think issue is wrong here; for alleviate, I'd recommend "problems"
 * "curtailed expenditures." - I'd have gone for "expenditure." in the singular
 * "called for the adoption of a Constitution" - why the capitalisation on constitution?
 * ""The fine territories, which extend from the Andes to the coast and down to the Magellan Straits are now wide open for our children." - I don't think the linking within the quote complies with the MOS guidance on this.
 * "reelection and assumption of dictatorial powers. " - "reassumption", as he'd had them before?
 * "The result of the 1833 election was a predictable 99.9% "yes" vote" - would the MOS prefer "percent" rather than "%" in this sort of article?
 * "Rosas believed that rigged elections were necessary for political stability" - would "Rosas believed that the manipulation of elections..." be somewhat closer to his actual beliefs?
 * "Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." - given that the Jesuits don't in the next sentence, would "Most Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." be more accurate?
 * "None of the lands confiscated from Indians and Unitarians were turned over to rural workers (including gauchos)" - the bracketed bit felt clumsy.
 * "Rosas was not racially prejudiced. " - this seems a remarkable and quite exceptional statement for the time. Do we really mean he wasn't racially biased at all...?
 * "a threat that historians have considered state terrorism." - just to check... do all the cited sources in the reference use the term?
 * "His targets were denounced as having ties (real or invented) to Unitarians. " I'd have gone for "His targets were denounced as having ties, sometimes inaccurately to Unitarians."
 * "Although a judicial branch still existed in Buenos Aires, " -"a judicial branch" seemed oddly worded to me. "Although courts still existed..."?
 * " Terrorism was orchestrated rather than a product of popular zeal, was targeted for effect rather than indiscriminate." - felt repetitious; you've already said this in preceding sentences.
 * "the port of the city of Buenos Aires, " - would "the port of Buenos Aires" (the title of the wiki article linked here) be simpler?
 * "Rosas either imprisoned or executed the plotters." - unclear if this means we are uncertain what he did, or that he imprisoned some and executed others.
 * "In the countryside, estancieros (including a younger brother of Rosas) revolted" - I'd have gone for commas rather than brackets here.
 * "Men who tried to escape had their throats cut and their heads put on display." - I'm not sure this makes sense. Why only men who tried to escape?
 * "Around 1845, Rosas managed to establish absolute dominance over the region, with no challenges to his authority remaining" - second half of the sentence felt redundant, given the first half.
 * "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) since 18 December 1829." > "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) in 18 December 1829." "or "Rosas had been promoted to brigadier general, then the highest rank in the army, in 18 December 1829." (which might flow more easily)
 * "which by 1831, following the Federal Pact (and officially from 22 May 1835), " - the brackets felt awkard here
 * "claiming that " - "stating that" would be more neutral in tone
 * "Rosas was a closeted monarchist, " - "closet monarchist" would be the normal rendering
 * " as had been many of his fellow countrymen. " - "had been" or "were"? If the former, the statement seems a bit irrelevant.
 * "Nonetheless, in public he claimed that his regime was republican in nature." - "claimed" > "stated", especially since we've just said that we don't know what his actual beliefs were. Hchc2009 (talk)


 * It's really good to see you here, Hchc2009. Your suggestions are great and I implemented them all. Just a few notes: 1) I've seen one historian call the "Colorados del Monte" "Red Rangers" and another "Red Soldiers of the Wild Country". There is no standard translation, thus I opted for a literal translation. Anything else would be Original Research, I think. 2) Every single source presented call Rosas' regime an sponsor of "state terrorism". That's why I added so many sources (as I did when I mentioned that he headed a dictatorship): to show that it is the prevalent opinion within historiography. As far as I know, there is no one that says that he was not a dictator nor that his regime did not sponsor state terrorism. 3) John Lynch is the one who says that Rosas was not racist, but later on the book he shows a quote from Rosas himself calling Brazilians blacks "monkeys". I chose to remove the mention of non-racist. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "some of its territories were separated and became the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay," - would "some of its territories declared independence as Paraguary, Bolivia and Uruguay" be more accurate and possibly simpler? (unless someone externally separated them)
 * "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province bound to be reconquered" minor, but "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province that would inevitably be reconquered" would prevent a potential misreading of "bound to" as the reader moves through the sentence.
 * " had either collapsed and disappeared" - I wondered if you could lose "and disappeared" here, as collapsed sort of implies it, and it would make the sentence read more simply
 * " like Gran Colombia..." - some would argue that "like" isn't strictly correct here, and "such as" would be more appropriate (although in normal writing, no-one would complain!)
 * "The undeclared war" - "This undeclared war" might make the paragraph flow more easily.
 * "the loss of trade with Buenos Aires did not compensate free navigation with other ports " - I think there's a word missing around "compensate free navigation"
 * "He declined to meet with his ministers and relied solely on secretaries who matched his own heavy workload." - I don't think you need the "who matched his own heavy workload" here; it doesn't really fit with the flow of the paragraph or the first half of the sentence.
 * "gave aid to the Uruguayan government " - "provided support to"?
 * "but could hardly disguise his ambition" - slightly unclear if this means that he did disguise his ambition, or if he didn't. How about "but did not disguise his ambition"?
 * "The new Argentine government confiscated all of Rosas properties" - a missing apostrophe after Rosas?
 * "More than 30 years later, in 1961, " - I don't think you need both of these as it is close to the previous date (i.e. either go for "More than 30 years later," or "In 1961,"
 * "who "have long been fascinated and outraged" by him" - unclear who the quote is from without in-line identification.


 * Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've implemented most of your suggestions. A couple seemed to require a bit of response in addition to edits:
 * Regarding your first point in the list immediately above: The breakdown of central authority produced a vacuum that took years to sort out. Argentina itself took years to emerge as a nation. I have changed the sentence to read: "The breakup of the old Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata during the 1810s eventually resulted in the emergence of the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay in the northern portion of the Viceroyalty, while its southern territories coalesced into the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata." Getting into the maze of rebellions, competing regional claimants, territorial shifts and factious infighting that took some time to work out would be a fine addition to the current Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata article, but could easily become a distraction here.
 * Regarding "hardly disguise his ambition": I am unsure how to reword this one. His ambition was known, but not explicit. Like Caesar refusing the crown but wanting the power at some point, Urquiza did not want to openly advance his ultimate aim, and thus risk alienating some of his allies, while things were still in flux. I have changed to: "Once one of Rosas' most trusted lieutenants, Urquiza now claimed to fight for a constitutional government, although his ambition to become head of state was barely disguised."
 * I hope these edits make things a bit clearer, though further suggestions are welcome. Thanks for your input. &bull; Astynax talk 09:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009, is there anything still missing that we should improve in the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying, happy to now support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian Rose, Nikkimaria already did an image review in previous nominations. Nothing changed on that regard since then. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review Laser_brain, I made a mistake. I added the correct title. Thanks for noticing it! --Lecen (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the Meade reference, is the book title wrong? It is the same as Miller below, I'm assuming a copy/paste error.
 * No other issues noted. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.