Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleship/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 Raul654 18:42, 12 February 2011.

Minas Geraes-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Say hello to another article in my (not-so) famous South American dreadnought series! The Minas Geraes class was a pair of Brazilian dreadnoughts. Ordered early in the dreadnought arms race when few countries possessed such ships, the ordering of the Minas Geraes' caused traditional powers around the world to hail Brazil's new-found 'power' (in one contemporary source, they "astonished the naval world"). They were the direct cause of a naval arms race among the "ABC countries", the subject of a yet-unwritten article, South American dreadnought arms race. The ships' time in the spotlight was short-lived. A major 1910 mutiny destroyed the false perception of Brazil's 'power', while the ships themselves were rapidly outclassed in terms of numbers and size as naval technology progressed to super-dreadnoughts. Still, both survived through the Second World War before being scrapped.

This article has been through an extremely thorough Milhist A-class review. I look forward to working with reviewers' constructive comments and questions to address any concerns you all have. Thank you for your time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Support per standard disclaimer. As Ed17 says, the A-class review was thorough. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sources look fine for reliabilty. A few minor concerns:- Spotchecks revealed only the points re 32, above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Poder Naval online: Retrieval dates should be added
 * Chicago does not require retrieval dates for citations that are unlikely to change; in this case, the links are to an archived copy of the webpage (14.7). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reply. Who/what is Chicago? Another point about the "Poder Naval online" sources is that they are in Portuguese, which needs to be noted. Can you briefly explain why "Poder Naval online" is given as publisher? I don't see this name on the sources.Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Chicago is Chicago, the most commonly referenced non-journalistic style guide in the US. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Chicago is The Chicago Manual of Style, the normal citations standard for papers on historical topics. I've fixed the publisher for two of the three (the third is correct) – while they were hosted on the Poder side, I think it was a separate project they copied in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gill, C.C. "Professional Notes." does not appear in the citations
 * Removed Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
 * Citations to "Scheina" should clearly reflect the source. For example, Ref 65: "Scheina, Argentina". Which of the Scheina books is this referring to? Plase check all the Scheina refs for clarity.
 * I was missing two of the references because of the gallery. They are added now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
 * Ref 32: a couple of points. First, the source does not refer to the "Two-Power Standard", which you put in quotes as though it does. Secondly, the view expressed in the source are not those of "members", but of Arthur Lee, the opposition's spokesman on naval affairs (later Viscount Lee of Fareham and First Lord of the Admiralty after World War I)
 * The quotes are meant because it wasn't an official name, just something it was often named. Even the link Two-Power Standard includes quotes in the article. I used "members" in an attempt to generalize the article into a common sentiment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your text must represent the source, not elaborate it. If the sources says Lee said it, that is what you must say. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Let's go by pieces:
 * 1) The article's name should be renamed (now or later) to Minas Gerais. "Minas Geraes" (with an "e" instead of "i") is archaic Portuguese, not used since the early 20th century.
 * What name do current English-language sources use? - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that a question to me? Anyway, until the beginning of the 20th century, the name of the city of Niterói in Rio de Janeiro was spelled as "Nichteroy". Keeping the name as spelled then will make harder to readers find the article. --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Modern sources are split. Scheina uses "Gerais", but Morgan and Topliss use "Geraes". I chose the latter because she made the most headlines and saw the most action under than name. It was not until later in her career that the spelling was altered. Still, I need to add a footnote explaining this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) "Dom" should't be in italics. As per our previous talk, Ed.
 * Yeah, yeah, I added that before our talk. :p Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) You should remove "República Velha". It's a historical term to name the period that goes from 1889 until 1930. It was created after Getúlio Vargas came to power in 1930, to differentiate his government from the "old republic". Why should be removed? Well, reader will think that it's quite odd that the monarchy was overthrowned in place of an... "old" republic. Perhaps instead of "during which Emperor Dom Pedro II was deposed in favor of the República Velha (English: Old Republic), the nation's navy" you could write "during which Emperor Dom Pedro II was deposed and the country became a republic, the nation's navy".
 * Butting in ... done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank, and nice catch Lecen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) The Baron of Rio Branco was not a politician, but a professional diplomat who was named minister of foreign affairs. He was the son of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco.
 * 5) The sudden appearance of Rio Branco in the text perhaps could be improved. Weird to see a... "baron" in a republic. Here is a small piece of text that might help you out:
 * "The Naval Revolt of September 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence. Brazil did not recover stability until the start of the new century. The republic's survival through this ordeal testified to its permanence but at the cost of Brazil's ideals being shattered, its expectations diminished, and its reputation sullied. The monarchy became viewed with greater tolerance and its achievements acknowledged. In 1902 Francisco de Paula Rodrigues Alves, a leading politician during the Empire's last decade, was named president of Brazil. His election ended all ostracism of former monarchists and began a return to the policies pursued during the Empire, policies that promised peace and order at home and a restoration of Brazil's prestige abroad. [...] Rodrigues Alves chose as Brazil's foreign minister the baron of Rio Branco, a son of Pedro II's favorite politician. The younger Rio Branco had remained in the diplomatic service after" (Page 403)
 * "1889, but his continued use of his title of nobility proclaimed his monarchist sympathies. Although he never 'adhered' to the republic, Rio Branco was willing to devote his formidable talents to the nation's service. As foreign minister from 1902 to his death in 1912, 'The Baron', as he was known, negotiated a number of treaties that both expanded and secured Brazil's boundaries. He was proud of thus completing the task to which his father had so notably contributed under Pedro II." (Page 404)
 * Source: Barman, Roderick J. (1999). Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804735107. (English)
 * Added this into footnote 5 -- thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I believe I wasn't clear enough. There is no need to a minibio of the Baron of Rio Branco. What I was trying to say is that there is one important gap from the moment Emperor Pedro II is removed from power to the sudden appearance of Rio Branco. That's why I brought the piece of text that you can see above. The Navy felt into disrepair due to its participation in the brual civil war in the early 1890s, when it sided with the monarchists. By the early 1900s, the monarchists were no more ostracized and many began working to the republic, although they did not become republicans (you don't need to add this piece of info into the text). The Baron of Rio branco is an important character because he was named Minister of Foreign Affairs and it was he the one behind the plan to bring back Brazil into the spotlight, including by buying the dreadnoughts. --Lecen (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still reading the article. I'll make more comments later. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment The only thing i see missing is how much the ships were sold for once they were scrapped.XavierGreen (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My sources do not contain this information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab- homestead, no dead external links. -- Pres N  22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Review complete
 * File:E_Minas_Geraes_C.jpeg The date is blank; probably should say something.
 * There's something wonky with the gallery; I think the intent was to show all three images next to each other but on most normal screen sizes (1280x1024 or less on Chrome, for example) it wraps. I don't remember if we talked about this in the A-review. Kirk (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed both of these – thanks you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Images reviewed. Kirk (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Random source check to Morgan reveals no issues with close paraphrasing, etc. Text supports statements given.
 * What is the editorial decision behind including Portuguese equivalents of various terms, even when they are seemingly not used in the sources? For example, I did not find the term Câmara dos Deputados in Morgan, but you provide it in the text. This seems like something a reviewer might have asked you to do, but I'd like to submit that it seems like visual noise to me, similar to when video game authors place Japanese translations of key terms into the writing.
 * This point was made at Almirante Latorre-class battleship as well, but I had forgotten to remove the extraneous terms in this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "These disputes nearly led to war in 1878" Or, "This dispute"? Wasn't it really just one long dispute over the same thing?
 * Changed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "but the attempts were dismissed, with Baron de Rio Branco remarking that caving to the American demands would render Brazil as powerless as suzerain Cuba." Suggest "as Baron de Rio Branco remarked" but not married to it.
 * I'm going to argue against this. I'm using Rio Branco to illustrate the general dismissal – I'm sure he wasn't the only one against it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken, thanks. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "the selection of Rear Admiral Alexandrino Fario de Alencar for the powerful post of minister of the navy" Is this different from "Minister of Marine" mentioned earlier? If so, how? If not, why the different labels?
 * Lecen did this. I think TOpliss used "Minister of Marine" and Schiena used "Minister of the Navy", hence the confusion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "After multiple trials testing the speed, endurance, efficiency, and weaponry of the ship" Can we replace "testing" with "of" without changing the meaning? Seems more elegant.
 * Changed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The second para of International reaction vexes me a bit. It suggests that these ships were still "for sale", while earlier text indicates money from Brazil had already been directed to paying for them. Was that not the case? Or was the UK simply contemplating "taking over" the sale?
 * They were never for sale. Essentially, they would have bought the ships from Brazil without giving them much choice in the matter, probably similar to the Chilean Almirante Latorre. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red links in that section for the periodicals... ever likely to become articles?
 * I don't know, hence why I included them. If you don't think so, I'm fine with removing them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Newspapers and journals around the world speculated as to the supposed real purpose of the ships" Speculated about?
 * If you read the ship article its a little more clear why Britain was suspicious of Brazil's motives for building such expensive ships; maybe that text needs to move here. I think its clear, personally, but I've reviewed a few other of the series.  Kirk (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied in a sentence from Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes which clarifies this and fixes the wording. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I was misunderstood on this one. I was just suggesting the wording "speculated about" instead of "speculated as to". I think the narrative was perfectly clear around this. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "During the revolt, the ships were noted by many observers to be well-handled" Who? Was there an international naval presence during the revolt?
 * There was nothing specific. I haven't seen anything on an international naval presence, so I want to assume it was either naval attaches, foreign newspaper correspondents, or both? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tow line? Probably no link.
 * Removed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat overlinked—check for dupes, for sure. I fixed one but there are others.
 * Most are purposeful. The distance between links to Pedro II are such that I don't want to penalize a reader for not reading the beginning if they skipped down, and Rio de Janeiro has a link at the beginning and in the gallery, for the people who read only the picture captions. :-) Otherwise there should be none (I don't normally count links in the lead, though -- if you do there are certainly more). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall very close, I think. As before, really interesting read! I never knew dreadnoughts were emerging in that area of the world before even Russia and Germany. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review. As always, it's much appreciated -- I'm glad to know someone enjoys reading these articles I write. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment- The article would look better without the red links. I will read it in the next few days, I like it so far. Paulista01 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I look forward to your comments! I agree, but per WP:RED anything that may or should be created is supposed to be redlinked. The only ones I think could be safely removed are the journal links in the "International reaction" section. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - Another interesting article - I look forward to reviewing more in this series. Kirk (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - Excellent work, the article is very easy to read. The sources look good. The pictures look good. I also could not find inconsistencies regarding the history of the period. I learned a lot regarding the dreadnoughts, it is very interesting that the Brazilian Navy had problems maintaining the ships operational. Congratulations. Paulista01 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good to me from here. One question I do have though - not enough to rock the boat (as it were), but it concerns the citations. I thought it was preferable to have the year in the inline citations? i.e., instead of, for instance, "Whitley, Battleships, 27–28." as in the article, "Whitley 1998, pp.27–28." was the preferred style? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Chicago uses "Author, Title, page–range." citations. I have the official style guide if you ever want to write an article in full Chicago style. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.