Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro Álvares Cabral/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 Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010.

Pedro Álvares Cabral

 * Nominator(s): &bull; Astynax talk and Lecen (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because a major overhaul during the last month has been completed. We have, hopefully, learned enough here to have ironed out most issues to bring it up to FA standards. Cabral was a major early Portuguese explorer who deserves wider recognition, and we have summarized the limited sources as best we can. &bull; Astynax talk 18:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. The history of exploration of the world is one of the underrepresented topics in Wikipedia, and Cabral certainly is one of the most important figures of the Age of Discovery and indeed deserves wider attention. The article is well-written and well-illustrated, and quite comprehensive in covering the topic. I really enjoyed reading it. Formatting of footnotes and references seem to be all right, as well as the quality of the sources. There is only one problem that I see in this article, it is minor one and perhaps easy to amend: there are three red wikilinks to the commanders of Cabral's ships and one Spanish explorer. Personally I prefer not to see red links in the quality articles. Greyhood (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RED; articles that meet notability should be redlinked. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In some footnotes there is an inconsistency in whether the years are bracketed. and one has "and" instead of a comma for multiple pages  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Those footnotes have now been fixed. &bull; Astynax talk 08:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. congratulations for the work: there's been a great improvement in the article, which is now comprehensive. I would support it if the choice of images is less centered on modern illustrations, favoring contemporary documents (Caminha's letter being one of the most notorious testimonies of Cabral's discovery), which I think is much more informative than the present romantic recreation of the discovery. --Uxbona (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand that your personal wish would be to add the letter (you've tried to that before) but I can't do that for some reasons. The article is on Cabral and Caminha is not mentioned at all in it. The former is the focus of the article. The letter would make sense in the article (which there is) on the voyage. The romantic recreation is an iconic image of Brazil's discovery as the painting of Pedro Américo despicting the declaration of Brazilian independence is regarded as the most iconic on Brazilian independence. I hope you can understand that. Lastly, I would like to thank you all for commenting here. --Lecen (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Ok, I understand. Thanks for your effort to complete article.--Uxbona (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * Endnote B should be cited to a source
 * What does the word "gallery" mean, in ref 84? A pity it pushes the page ref into the next column.

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Brian. Thanks for taking a look in the article. In "Return to Europe" section, the last phrase, taken from historian Bailey Diffie and which is sourced, explain why Cabral was the responsible for the birth of the Portuguese colonial Empire. The book used as source has a gallery between pages 222 and 223. The pages that are part of the gallery are not numbered as pages. Below on of the images which is part of the gallery there is a text which says that the carracks were used in Vasco da Gama, Columbus and Cabral's voyages. --Lecen (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is now a reference in the note. &bull; Astynax talk 02:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral leaning oppose  - an important and under-represented topic, but still in need of some polishing.
 * Spell out numbers under 10
 * "Cabral was christened Pedro Álvares de Gouveia and only later, supposedly upon his elder brother's death in 1503,[4][7][8] did he switch to using his mother's surname rather than his father's" - I'm confused, isn't de Gouveia his mother's surname?
 * Approximately how much is 30,000 reias in modern currency?
 * What is "fidalgo"?
 * "was as tall as his 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8)[18] father" - measurement should here be in adjective form
 * The first two paragraphs of "Arrival in a new land" seem to belong in the preceding section
 * Provide conversion for 30 tons
 * "2nd[66] or 3rd[64] of May 1500" (and similar) -> "2[66] or 3[64] May 1500"
 * The article is in need of some minor copy-editing for clarity and flow
 * "before the merchantmen were set afire" - the ships were set afire, or the merchants?
 * I think some of those quotes would be better paraphrased and cited - you use quite a few, which tends to reduce their impact
 * Does the book title beginning "Revista" include the word "Trimestral" or not?
 * Use a consistent formatting for sources with multiple authors
 * José Olympio or J. Olympio?
 * Boxer entry: remove doubled period
 * Be consistent in how volumes and editions are listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply:
 * Numbers under 10 spelled: done
 * Surname changed from mother's: clarified
 * "30,000 reias in modern currency": Conversion of pre-modern currencies is next to impossible, as authorities debate and propose new calculation methods constantly. None of the sources give even an estimate, and references giving conversions from 15th–16th century Portuguese currency to modern currency are unknown to Lecen and me.
 * "What is fidalgo?" As explained at the first instance of the term's use, fidalgo is "a minor title then commonly granted to young nobles".
 * Reference the height of Cabral's father: reworded
 * "Arrival in a new land": The preceding section deals with the equipping and departure of the fleet, rather than the voyage and its goals. I've retitled the subsection to "Goals and voyage"
 * "Provide conversion for 30 tons": done
 * "2nd[66] or 3rd[64] of May 1500": both occurrences fixed
 * "the ships were set afire, or the merchants?": A "merchantman" is a type of ship in modern English. A "merchant" is a person. Regardless, some of both were torched.
 * "Revista" journal name: fixed
 * formatting for multiple authors: done
 * José Olympio vs. J. Olympio? fixed
 * doubled period in reference note: done
 * consistent format for volumes and editions in reference citations: done
 * Thank you for taking time to go over the article. &bull; Astynax talk 09:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Replies and further concerns
 * "he was named moço fidalgo (a minor title then commonly granted to young nobles)... He was given the title fidalgo" - fidalgo seems to be a separate title from the one that uses your explanation
 * I would argue that the "Discovery of Brazil" section would be best served by being divided into only two subsections
 * "equaled his father's 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8) height" - grammar
 * Date issue discussed above has only partially been fixed
 * Issue with volumes is not fixed
 * There are several places where the wording is awkward, making comprehension difficult. Suggest copy-edit to improve clarity and flow
 * Combine identical references per WP:NAMEDREFS
 * "Battered by tempests, attacked by pirates and finally forced aground on the Eritrean coast, in a desperate search for water and food for his rapidly-dying crew" - not a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply:
 * As in English knighthoods, fidalgo had grades (including moço fidalgo) which varied through history. If there is an article detailing 15th century Portuguese grades of nobility, we could certainly add a link. Is anyone really confused by this or think that the various titles used need to be expounded upon further? If so, then it is going to take some time to track down a reference.
 * Lecen combined the subsections under "Discovery of Brazil".
 * I disagree that "equaled his father's 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8) height" has a problem with grammar. I've changed the wording from "equaled" to "matched", however.
 * I've made another change to the dates you indicated.
 * Obviously we're not understanding your point about the volumes in the References section. Please feel free to be more specific, or just reformat them as you wish. My personal view is that they should have been left as given in the references themselves.
 * Again, please be more specific about what wording makes comprehension difficult.
 * I have just wasted nearly an hour poring through the footnotes again, and found no instances of identical references.
 * The incomplete sentence has been fixed.
 * Thanks again. &bull; Astynax talk 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has Nikkimaria been asked to revisit the Oppose?
 * Sort of, but I'll AGF that "pretend" was a result of a language barrier. In any event, I've struck my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment:
 * We have only the barest outline of the criteria used by the Portuguese government in selecting Cabral to head the expedition to India. - as I mentioned in my hidden text, this wording is a bit awkward, could it be reworded? I've taken a few stabs, but I can't come up with anything I like. Connormah (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: I've tried tweaking the sentence again. &bull; Astynax talk 09:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Informative, thorough, broad, interesting details. I fixed a few minor things along the way.  Magic ♪piano 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Well written and complete. I would change the footnotes section (overly long) into a two-column format but that's a very minor nitpick. -- Alexf(talk) 12:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: (all really minor)
 * The article uses historian "William Greenlee"'s full name but historians "Newitt" and "McClymont" only get a surname; either can work, but it should be consistent. (NB: James McClymont gets his first name again later on!)
 * "was headed to Calicut (or Kozhikode) in India" - is Kozhikode another name for Calicut, or is it another place altogether? (I'm guessing the former, but it's unclear from the wording).
 * Stylistically, there are some bracketed sections that feel like they should be integrated into the main part of the sentence - e.g. "Dom Manuel I (who had acceded to the throne two years previously)", "Afonso Lopes (pilot of the lead ship)", " Nicolau Coelho (a captain who had experience from Vasco da Gama's voyage to India)", " a third vessel (commanded by Pedro de Ataíde)", "found in today's Venezuela (northwest of Brazil)," etc.
 * "could result banishment (as it did for one of da Gama's supporters)" Missing an "in", and the brackets probably aren't necessary.
 * " Despite a desperate defense by crossbowmen, more than 50 Portuguese were killed (according to other sources, between 20 and 70 were wounded or murdered)" - there's a full stop missing at the end of the sentence I think.
 * Support. with those minor bits fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thanks. Changes and fixes have been made per your comments. &bull; Astynax talk 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Nicely done.  However, please look at the sentence, "the factory suffered a surprise attack by some 300, perhaps even thousands, of Muslim Arabs and Hindu Indians." The word "thousands" makes the sentence grammatically incorrect&mdash;depending on what the source says, it should say "perhaps as many as a thousand", "perhaps as many as several thousand", or "perhaps even several thousand"&mdash;or anything else that involves "thousand" and not the plural.  Then drop the "of". --Spangineerws  (háblame)  20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thanks for going through the article and your suggestions. I have reworded the sentence. &bull; Astynax talk 20:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I was wondering what's the point of having a section 4. Later Years followed by subsection 4.1 Fall from grace and death with no text in between and no 4.2 subsection. Wouldn't it be better to just rename section 4 as Fall from grace and death and do away with 4.1?¨--Victor12 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. Yes, I agree. I have removed the subsection heading. &bull; Astynax talk 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I asked J Milburn to do that. I'm waiting him to respond me. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Nice work on this. It is a very interesting read. Where I went to school we learned much about Vasco de Gama but virtually nothing about Cabral.
 * "His fleet sailed far into the western Atlantic" Do you think it goes without saying "Atlantic Ocean"? I'm just wondering if "the Atlantic" is too colloquial for readers from some parts of the world.
 * "The Portuguese retaliated by looting and burning the Arab fleet and shelling the city." Can you add a little context to the lead here? The statement is baffling on its own because we have no idea why they would shell a non-Arab city. It's readily apparent after reading down, but you could add a bit more here.
 * Despite the loss of human lives?
 * It is necessary to have 3 or 4 citations for statements such as his birthplace or number of brothers and sisters? Are these likely to be disputed?
 * "an annual allowance worth 30,000 reais" Do we have any indication of whether that's a lot of money for the time? Would he be considered wealthy based on that sum?
 * Has WP:LQ been consulted for punctuation of quotations? If the period is part of the quotation, it should be inside the closing quote. I'm looking at the second para of "Fleet commander-in-chief". There are other places, such as "Posthumous rehabilitation", where the periods are inside.
 * "So both parties viewed moves by the other with extreme suspicion." Can you rewrite this without the awkward interjection?
 * File:Cabral voyage.png This doesn't look too good. The original image is a vector image the new route lines are raster. It's all pixellated at any decent resolution. Can you get someone to redo this as a vector image?
 * Not too far to go, I think. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to answer the ones related to the subject. I'll leave the other points related to grammar and style to Astynax, who is far better than I on that.
 * "His fleet sailed far into the western Atlantic" You're free to add "Ocean", if you believe it would be better.
 * "Are these likely to be disputed?" Perhaps. Cabral's life before and after the voyage is very obscure. Some historians mention that he was the second eldest child, but others say that he was the third eldest male. Some give his birth in 1467 and other in 1468.
 * "an annual allowance worth 30,000 reais" Unfortunately, we don't. That point was raised in here before and the best we could would be to guess how much was worth it. I am pretty sure that is was very large sum to the time, since 100,000 reais was the amount needed in Brazil in 1824 to be able to vote. Although 100,000 reais was easily acchieved by anyone who had even the most simple job, 324 years before 30,000 reais was surely a lot of money.
 * File:Cabral voyage.png This doesn't look too good. I don't think so. --Lecen (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a new map which is far more detailed than the other one. Is it better? --Lecen (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's detailed but the quality is still not good. If you do not understand the difference between vector and raster graphics, it might be better to find a graphics person to fix it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence "The Portuguese retaliated by looting and burning the Arab fleet and shelling the city." has been expanded to read "Cabral took vengence by looting and burning the Arab fleet and then bombarded the city in retaliation for its ruler having failed to explain the unexpected attack."
 * You are correct that the punctuation should be inside the quote marks for the quotation from Newitt. I have adjusted a few others at the same time.
 * The sentence "So both parties viewed moves by the other with extreme suspicion." has been reworded to "The Portuguese and Arabs were extremely suspicious of each other's every action."
 * I have an older program which is supposed to export svg, though I don't know how many features it supports. Will try converting it tonight. &bull; Astynax talk 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At Lecen's suggestion, I made a request here to get the route map vectorized. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Supporting now. My concerns have been addressed, and we have a fine article. I can't wait to read others in the series. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we still waiting for an image review? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've asked Jappalang and J Milburnto review it (the same who did that in Pedro II of Brazil), but none of them answered me. --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Well written, well sourced. I made some small copy-edits for clarity etc. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced, researched, informative, all in all, good work!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Image review: All images are in the public domain with acceptable sources list, except:
 * File:Cabral_voyage_1500.svg, licensed cc-by-sa 3.0 and derived from a public domain source, acceptable
 * File:Bernardelli - Monumento a Cabral.jpg, licensed cc-by-sa 3.0, but could be problematic, since there is no indication of when the monument was constructed. If the monument is still under copyright, this can't be used without proper licensing from the artist.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - All images look good now. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review concerns and questions :
 * File:Carrack 1565.jpg: which 1565 map?


 * File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg: Judging from the similarity in art style and layout with the illustration of Vasco de Gama's fleet, is this also from the Livro das Armadas (16th century)?


 * File:Oscar Pereira da Silva - Desembarque de Pedro Álvares Cabral em Porto Seguro em 1500.jpg
 * 1922 is the date of creation or date of publication? Why does File:Desembarque de Cabral.jpg say 1904?  Da Silva died in 1939; his Brazilian copyright persists till the start of this year (2010).  Does he have heirs?  If they authorised reproductions during that 70-year pma, that constitutes publication.  If the first publication is after 1922 but before 1977, then US copyright persists for 95 years since that year (URAA restoration because work is not public domain in Brazil before 1 Jan 1996).


 * File:Pedro alvares cabral discovery of brazil 1500.jpg
 * Aurélio de Figueiredo died in 1916. Was this work published during his lifetime?  From 1916 to 1987, his heirs (if any) have the rights to authorise publication of his works.  Did he have any heirs?  Was this work reproduced anywhere during that time?  What year is Revista de História da Biblioteca Nacional (Issue 55)?
 * The only way this could qualify for US copyrights (because his works are in the Brazilian public domain before 1 Jan 1996) is if Figueiredo's heirs registered and renewed his works in the US. I was unable to find any signs of this at their website or in the tomes of available Copyright Records on Google books.  Therefore, it is a very unlikely case.  I had to plow through Brazilian websites just to find a simple answer to which year that magazine is: the answer&mdash;April 2010&mdash;which the nominators could have simply provided such.  Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Cabral voyage 1500.svg
 * "Based on work created by MesserWoland and Petr Dlouhý": What work?  Considering the level of details involved, is the base map a recreation from public domain material or a rendering from a set of data.  Ref: commons:Commons:Image casebook, WP:CITE, WP:IUP


 * File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg
 * Roque Gameiro died in 1935. His copyrights persist until the start of 2006.  Any of his work published from 1923 to 1977 are granted 95 years of copyright protection in the US by the URAA agreement.  First publication in História da Colonização Portuguesa (1923) would mean it is still protected in the US until 2019.


 * File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png
 * When was it published? Is Nossa História magazine, issue 6, an "around 1850" publication?

Just the above for the moment. Most (the ones in italics) should be resolved before promotion to FA. Jappalang (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have cast in italics the images that are more of a "concern" than a "question". Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * File:Carrack 1565.jpg: The referenced source (Boxer, Charles R. O império marítimo português 1415–1825. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002) doesn't assign a name for the map, just a date and the artist (Sebastião Lópes). Perhaps there is another source which gives a name (if a distinct name exists), but seems an unnecessary bit of info.
 * It might be, but it would be more helpful to anyone who seeks to reuse this image. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg: This is a picture of a page from a report on the expedition, so yes, it is obviously 16th c.
 * A link was missing (now restored), was this report the Livro das Armadas? Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Oscar Pereira da Silva - Desembarque de Pedro Álvares Cabral em Porto Seguro em 1500.jpg: This reference says the painting was first exhibited and acquired by the the state government in 1902.
 * The concern is to clarify that da Silva or his heirs (if any) did not authorize publication of this work before 1978 since that could create the possibility of US copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pedro alvares cabral discovery of brazil 1500.jpg: It should be enough that the image was created before 1887 and that the author died in 1916. The image was exhibited in 1887, and is in the Museu Histórico Nacional do Rio de Janeiro.
 * The concern is that his heirs would have authorized publication of the work before 1978 and have registered and renewed copyrights in the US for it, thus getting the 95 years of US copyright protection. If there is no such publication, then there would be no worries.  (http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm: Works Published Abroad Before 1978, 1923 through 1977, Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal), 95 years after publication date) Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg: This 19th century artwork should be covered under the PD-Art tag. It has since been reproduced several times. As it was published in Portugal, its copyright expired at the end of 2005.
 * It was asked when was the miniature first published. The answer was that a 1923 publication was the earliest publication found, this is not a 1800s (of which 1814 is a valid date, before the birth of the author) work the words led me to believe (underlined words inserted per clarification below  06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)).  As already explained, a 1923 first publishing would qualify it for the 95-year US copyright protection.  Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that the work was first published in 1923. What I did say was that the earliest book I could find was one published in 1923. Do not change the meaning of my words, please. I have another book that says that the miniature was from the 19th Century. That is why is written "19th Century". --Lecen (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for misinterpreting your words, I have amended the above. Jappalang (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png: Nossa História is a journal (now defunct). It reproduced the lithograph, which was originally published by George Mathias Heaton and Eduard Rensburg. These were two foreign illustrators and publishers active during the 1850s in Brazil. Rensburg was born in 1817 and died in 1898. Heaton was born in 1804 and must have died sometime prior to that.
 * The point is to clarify the period of the journal since the image is scanned from it.   Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Cabral voyage 1500.svg: The map's status is as noted. The Wikipedia editors mentioned helped create the map and/or created the PD map from which this map was adapted.
 * From which public domain or "free" map was the geographical outlines copied from, or which set of geographical co-ordinate data set was used to create the underlying map? From which sources were information on Cabral's routes taken from?  Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope the above will help clarify. &bull; Astynax talk 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am getting rather tired of repeating the same things across the board. If you upload items to Commons, then abide its policies. Per commons:Commons:Licensing: Wikimedia Commons accepts only media * that are explicitly freely licensed, or    * that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. If you upload to Wikipedia, Image use policy states, "Wikipedia pages, including non-English language pages, are hosted on a server in the United States, so U.S. law governs whether a Wikipedia image is in the public domain." A work might be public domain in Portugal or Brazil, but US law determines what copyright it is in the country of the server (US). Just like how Popeye is in the public domain outside of the US, but is still copyrighted in it. Any uploads of images to either Wikipedia or Commons must satisfy US laws.

The primary aim of the projects is to establish a repository of free material (compliant with at least US law) for others to re-use. The point of providing specific correct information for those images are to help re-users verify for themselves whether or how they can safely use the images in their country. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply: Perhaps the repetition is needed because it is difficult to match what we read in Wiki's image policies with what seem to be your statements. Maybe policy is too vague or just wrong, but it is what we go by:
 * Insistence on additional "helpful" information: If we had that info, we would have added it. We don't. Were such additions required by Policy, I'd just withdraw the nomination until someone with access to better resources (or a big legal and travel budget) came along to gather, verify and tag the images with that "helpful" data (that would never happen, IMO). But unless I've completely missed something, that sort of info is not required.
 * Reproductions of older 2-D works: Off-Wiki links notwithstanding, Wikipedia's position seems very clear: "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain" (see the PD-art template and talk).
 * Some comments seem to be projecting provisions of current law backward to cover works which were copyrighted under different rules. Those old rules still apply. I'm fairly certain that the current rules are generally not retroactive for older works, those are under the copyright provisions in force at the the time of their creation/publication. If that isn't the case, then policy needs to be changed/clarified. I don't see anywhere that Wiki agrees with efforts by some to privatize works that are in the public domain—far from it.
 * The apparent contention that works which are public domain in other nations may not be in the public domain in the U.S. (or on U.S. servers) also does not seem to be policy. Policy states that a work is public domain in the U.S. if its copyright has expired in the nation of origin: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of 1 January 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
 * Did you even bother to read that section in its context? Specifically, "However, being in the public domain in its home country does not automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does not follow the "rule of shorter term"." in the first paragraph and that the statement you quoted is "For works (photographs and others alike, but excepting sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972) not published in the U.S., the following rule applies: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.)"  Did you even bother to read the later problems the later six paragraphs illustrate, and the final statements of that paragraph, "And strictly speaking one would also have to verify that a non-U.S. work was not covered by copyright in the U.S. by virtue of some bilateral agreement of the U.S. and the foreign country (see [5] and "Circular 38a" in the "external links" section below). Country-specific public domain tags must therefore be used with the utmost care only."?  Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the map, again, the map in the Cabral article is based on another map placed into the PD on WikiCommons. I have no idea of how they drew their original map, nor would I probably know what they were talking about if they told us—we take their statement that it is their own work in GF. As for the route drawn on the map being questioned (my head is spinning), it simply follows the narrative in the article.
 * If the policy and the comments you've made are supposed to be in alignment, then either the policy or your explanation of policy needs to be clearer. The day only IP law students are allowed to edit here or contribute material will be a sad day indeed. Editors must rely on clear policy, and only on clear policy. I would respectfully suggest that if Wiki policy needs to be changed or clarified, the place to do it isn't here. &bull; Astynax talk 05:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed we are not to talk about changes to policies or guidelines here and I have certainly not done so here. I am instead pointing out the misinterpretations and thus violations of the policies.  Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Astynax. As I said before, Commons' rules are misleading if Jappalang's point of view is the one correct. In fact, if we take in account his near impossible demands to prove that an image (including one of the 16th Century!) is in free public domain, all images in history-related Featured articles wii have to be erased. All. --Lecen (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had decided to bow out on this unresolved issue, since I did not contribute these images. However, since the insinuation has been put forth that we have violated and misinterpreted policy, I will note that no evidence to back that up has been put forward. Again, I don't see the granularity being demanded here for 120+ year old images and works based on PD work created by Wiki contributors as being at all supported by policy. Indeed, what is being demanded itself seems to violate Wiki's position as explained in the PD-art and PD-old templates. Name searches at Google Books copyright search and the US Copyright Office sites turned up nothing registered under the 2 artists names (Oscar Pereira da Silva; Roque Gameiro) who died early in the 20th century. There were also no results for Eduard Rensburg and/or George Mathias Heaton to whom the mid-19th century lithograph was attributed. Angilicization possibilities for the titles are endless, and the names of any heirs are unknown, so those are useless. Those 2 sites are hardly comprehensive for graphic art, but they are the only places available to most Wikipedia editors and reviewers. If there are better databases available to Wiki contributors and reviewers, please do tell so we all can learn—seriously. &bull; Astynax talk 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the tags in the paintings available in Cabral's article:
 * File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png
 * File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg
 * File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg
 * File:Carrack 1565.jpg
 * The ones related to US-Copyright were changed to others that are more clear and taken in accord with Wikimedia Foundation's policy. Since some of the works were also made in Brazil, I added tags which reveals their copyright status in their country of origin. Lastly, I added a little bit of information (along with sources) to the year of the two maps above. I hope that was what you were looking after since it will make them far more precise as to their copyright status. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Image issues resolved; all are verifiably public domain or appropriately licensed for the project. Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions on intellectual property

Lecen and any others:

Some recent developments have made it advisable to ask these questions. Please do not take them as indicating any doubt about your work; they are just one more step in the review process. I recognize these questions come late in the process but they are necessary to ensure the integrity of the FAC process. Thank you, and good luck with this nomination. Kablammo (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies about copyright? Do you believe this article complies with these policies?
 * 2) Is there any verbatim sentence or phrase in the article which is not encased in quote marks and attributed to the specific source?
 * 3) Is there any sentence or close paraphrase of a source?
 * 4) Is there any translation which is a verbatim transcriptions or close paraphrase of a (even if idiomatic) translation of the original source(s)? If so, can you tell us which ones?
 * 5) In writing this article, did you adopt the sentence structure or organization of any source?
 * Reply:
 * I believe the article complies with Wiki policy on copyright.
 * I believe all verbatim sentences/phrases are encased in quote marks and attributed to sources.
 * If there are any close paraphrases, they are not intentional. The difference between a close paraphrase and a summary must be a very fine line, and the article does summarize and attribute its sources.
 * Is there any translation which is a verbatim transcriptions or close paraphrase of a (even if idiomatic) translation of the original source(s)? There are such translations, but they are in quote marks and attributed.
 * There was no intentional adoption of sentence structure or organization of any source.
 * Qualification (as these are broad questions): When reading through source material, the brain sometimes picks up on something which can affect wording and organization, so I cannot state absolutely that something of that nature could not have crept in. I also cannot speak to wording in sources which may be out there that I haven't read. I cannot speak for every editor/contribution to the article. There are cases where existing material gets rewritten or improved during copyedits which could introduce/reintroduce such issues. However, when going over the article, I do not see anything which sticks out as material from those sources I have read. &bull; Astynax talk 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick and helpful response, Astynax. It would be helpful to have other principal contributors also respond.  Best wishes,  Kablammo (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All words said by Astynax can be called my own. If it does help in anyway possible, most books used as sources in the article can be easily found in google books and are even written in English, despite the subject being a Portuguese explorer. In other words, I assume complete responsability for the text of the article is it is written now. --Lecen (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: many of the sources are in Portuguese, which makes it hard on reviewers to do the (now necessary) source checking for WP:V, plagiarism and copyvio. This is not guideline or policy-- it is my suggestion for how to better handle non-English sources, to make it easier on reviewers, and it is what I do when citing Spanish sources.

You are currently formatting sources like this: If you will switch the pt icon to the front of the source, it is much easier to scan the sources and determine how many are non-English: Again, this is not required by any guideline, but it certainly makes article review easier, and I also think it makes article reading easier, since readers will know right up front if a source is in English.
 * Bueno, Eduardo. A viagem do descobrimento: a verdadeira história da expedição de Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1998. ISBN 8573022027
 * Bueno, Eduardo. A viagem do descobrimento: a verdadeira história da expedição de Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1998. ISBN 8573022027

One followup question to our (new) plagiarism checklist: are you aware that literal translations from Portuguese to English would also be considered plagiarism, and that non-English translations also have to be reworded to avoid close paraphrasing? Just clarifying ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Spanish surely is not Portuguese. Or as far as I know, German is not English, depite having a common origin. And no, I did not simply translate a Portuguese phrase into English. Don't worry about that. Also, most of the text was created from English-written sources, available at google books. Anyone is free to check it out there. A few examples:, , and . Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


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