Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1

Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

 * Nominator(s):  Alex  (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always found it baffling how most members of the Brazilian royal family have long, compelling articles, but Pedro, who had just about as much impact on Brazilian history as his brother did, had a four line-long article. So I dedicated two days to this article and this is what came up. I am nominating it because I believe it now meets FA criteria.  Alex  (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: just a note that I've pinged Astynax on this, since he has edited this article and has brought a lot of articles on the Brazilian royals to FAC. (I would have pinged Lecen as well, but he's semi-retired.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw a post by Lecen, so I'm pinging him. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as a featured article at the present time. One of the criteria we require of featured articles is that they be stable. This article has had one edit in the past six months, the enormously large one just contributed by Alex, who has now immediately proposed the article for FA status. Alex: whilst we can all see the substantial work you've put into this article, it has not been in its current form for long enough to count as "stable". We need to wait for a while, and let other editors take a look at the article as it now stands. Perhaps there will be some positive changes or corrections by other specialists in this kind of article. Once other interested parties have assessed this article, and it is subject to no major changes in form or content, we'll be able to say that it's stable. If, as I suspect (but am not qualified to say for sure), you've done a good job, in a few months this article will pass the stability test; once that happens, let's take another look. For now, though, I think this should progress no further. RomanSpa (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do admit I was a bit too hasty in nominating the article, but that's only because my set goal was to bring it to its best form. I guess I might as well wait until it passes the stability test. --  Alex  (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @RomanSpa: The article has a readable prose size of only 1234 words, do you think this fact might negate any stability issues? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that size (either large or small) is directly linked to stability. A small article with a hotly disputed sentence is just as likely to be unstable as a large one. What I think we need to do for this article is leave enough time to find out whether it contains any such sentences. Once that time has passed, we can re-assess it for featured article status. RomanSpa (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you were right about stability issues. Except that in this case the issue is not about a hotly disputed statement, it is simply that other editors have added great chunks of text to the article. In light of these major changes, I have to oppose. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. I have made a few, mostly minor changes (feel free to revert any). Although it is a good idea to let new changes settle for a bit and garner more input, I think that this one has a lower possibility for serious disputes than most. The only things with potential for disagreement in sources might be the cause of death. I may have missed some issues, but after a couple of readings it does seem to adequately summarize the more important points of this brief life and make use of good references. &bull; Astynax talk 09:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Article looks mostly fine to me, good work. A few style comments, mostly optional nits (so feel free to disagree and say "No I like it the way it is," I'm not a Brazilian history expert):
 * I see that it's used for Pedro II & Afonso as well, but why does Pedro get "Dom" in front? This a local standard for Brazilian nobility?  In general I'm not a fan of Wikipedia referring to nobles using their honorifics, WP should be neutral and owe deference to no specific royalty.  Most European monarchs don't get this in front, either.  In the same fashion, should Pedro II / Teresa Cristina afterwards still be referred to with "Dom" and "Dona"?  If it's common enough, fine, but otherwise, I'd rather it be left out.
 * Also right in the first three words... you say in the footnote that "Modern historians refer to him as Pedro Afonso."  Should this article be moved to "Pedro Afonso", then?  Or "Pedro Afonso, Prince of Brazil?"  I'd think we should follow what the experts use.
 * "For the rest of his life, he viewed himself as Head of State and nothing more" --> I guess you're trying to get at that Pedro II didn't see himself as part of an eternal dynasty, but this still reads funny, implying that being "just an Emperor" was disappointing. If that's really the case, can you be more explicit ("Pedro had previously believed {X}, but the Prince's death caused him to think {Y})?  Or else just leave it as "The Prince's death caused Pedro II to believe the imperial line would end with him."
 * "lacking an interest in protecting the imperial system, Pedro II eventually drove the empire to its downfall." --> This sounds rather hyperbolic to me.  "Empire" implies the entire state, but Brazil didn't collapse; just the monarchy, judging by the Leagcy section.  Say so here?  "Pedro II quietly accepted Brazil's transition to a republic in 1889, believing the monarchy had been doomed long before with the death of the prince" perhaps?
 * Does "Religion" make sense in the Honors box? Sure he was baptized a Roman Catholic, but since he died a child, I'd just leave it out.
 * "Historian Roderick J. Barman believes that "fatherhood gave the emperor the emotional security and the self-confidence so conspicuously missing during his childhood and adolescence," allowing him to better fulfill his duties as monarch." --> The placement of this line seems to imply Barman is specifically referring to Prince Pedro's birth, not fatherhood overall. Is that a correct assumption?  Considering that Pedro II could only act as father of Pedro Afonso for a very short time, that implies Barman thinks his rule was notably better during that year & a half, which is a little surprising.  Alternatively, if Barman means "fatherhood in general" (including daughters), maybe be a bit more clear about that.
 * For the Honors section: Is there are a more recent reference than the 1849 book? And is it possible to add an explanatory sentence as to what's going on with these honors, and their significance, if any?  They can't have been for anything a 1-year old did.  Were they bestowed by his father?  Just something the entire royal family got automatic membership in?  SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I'll just respond to everything in order:
 * "Dom" is very commonly used when referring to Brazilian royalty. If you do a quick Google Books search for Pedro II you will find that most books call him "Emperor Dom Pedro" or "Emperor D. Pedro", so I believe it's best to leave it there.
 * Maybe the article should be moved, if anyone else thinks so, I'll get right to it. Personally, I didn't find any book referring to him otherwise except Longo's "Isabel Orléans-Bragança", in which he is called Pedro Leopold. Any contemporary source I could find calls him simply "Príncipe Imperial".
 * I've changed it.
 * I agree and I've changed the second sentence, but I've left the first; I think it sounds better this way.
 * I don't see a problem with it; since he was baptized a Roman Catholic, his religion was Catholicism. That is why the "religion" parameter was added to the infobox, to inform people on the respective person's religion.
 * I see what you mean and I've fixed it, I hope it's clearer now.
 * The 1849 book is a contemporary source, so I believe it's good enough. These honors were conveyed upon all members of the Brazilian royal family, you can read the text here and here.  Alex  (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply.
 * I suppose I should rephrase: I know that "Dom" usage is common, but I suppose my point was that it should be extremely common to the point of "it's misleading not to mention this in the lede", since WP normally omits honorifics. Which if it is, fine, it's a judgment call.
 * I double-checked some random other died-very-young royalty articles, and they're inconsistent about whether to include "religion." Henry, Duke of Cornwall, Robert Stuart, Duke of Kintyre, & Anne of England (1637–1640) do not; Mary Stuart (1605–1607), Margaret Stuart (1598–1600), & Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias do.  I personally prefer leaving out religion for such young children in Infoboxes, but I respect that this is apparently a judgment call of the article maintainer at the moment, so I suppose it's fine.
 * For the honors: I realize this is hair-splitting, but those sources largely only refer to all members of the Imperial Family having such-and-such a title. (Okay, the Order of the Rose one does mention that while all Imperial Family members are a Grand Cross, the Principe Imperial is also a "Grand Major Dignitary".)  I suppose this cuts into what you were saying before about Pedro usually being referred to contemporaneously only as the "Prince Imperial", so it's not clear if it meant "any Prince Imperial" or "specifically Pedro."  I'm not questioning that Pedro technically held these ranks, but he held them sheerly by virtue of existing, it seems, which makes them border on trivia.  Short article, so perhaps harmless to include, but I'd suggest chopping this down to something like two sentences with no list.  "All members of the Brazilian Imperial Family automatically were high-ranking members of several Brazilian orders of chivalry.  These included the Order of X, the Order of Y, and the Order of Z."  (Yes, I realize this would be different than how most nobility articles handle honors, so again please feel free to prefer to keep it as is, but I think this case is a good exception.) SnowFire (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the FA nominations for Pedro I, Pedro II, Afonso and Teresa Cristina and, except for Pedro II, they all had Dom/Dona included in the lead at the time they were promoted, so I suppose it's very common.
 * I've changed the "Honors" subsection and I hope it's fine now.  Alex  (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. SnowFire (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. SnowFire (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * File:Palace_of_sao_cristovao_by_stahl_1862.jpg: source and author are reversed, and missing page number
 * File:Pedro_II_of_Brazil_1850.jpg needs US PD tag and page number
 * File:Benedito_Calixto_-_Proclamação_da_República,_1893.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Periods removed.
 * I've added a page number, but I don't see what you mean my author and source are reversed.
 * Added US PD tag. Since @Lecen is the original uploader of the file and I can't seem to find an online version of this book, perhaps he could add the page.
 * Added.  Alex  (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added.  Alex  (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone Support Oppose (see below) Generally very good. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * while his full name is pretentious and annoying beyond description, is it appropriate not to cite it at all in the lede? I take it it is seldom referred to in sources?
 * "the levee following Pedro's birth was the most splendid and best attended since the one following the proclamation of Pedro II's majority". As far as i know, a levee is a bank against floodwaters???
 * "Pedro II's childhood aia" needs a wikilink or explanation of this term that 99% of readers will never have heard (including me).
 * "a band shell of about 150 musicians". What is a "band shell"??
 * "A party of North Americans paid US$5 for the privilege of watching the funeral from the Hotel da França, located on the Palace Square". Why is this important enough to be included?
 * I don't believe it makes much difference how pretentious or annoying it is, since it is Pedro's full name and should be added into a biography of him. Citing it all would be useless expanding of the lead; it is already cited in the infobox and in the "Birth" subsection.
 * Sorry i expressed that poorly: my question is: is it consistent with the MOS not to have his full name in the lede?
 * I don't think there should be a problem, since his name is so long.
 * As you can see here, levee can also mean "A formal reception, especially one given by royalty or other leaders."
 * Thanks for adding the link.
 * I've added a Wiktionary link explaining the word.
 * I've corrected the erroneous sentence and I've also added a Wiktionary link for "band shell."
 * It's important because it signifies how grand the funeral really was, I mean people actually paid money to be allowed to watch.  Alex  (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't interpret the sentence that way - i didn't understand it was expressing the funeral's importance. Suggest you be more direct, along the lines of "the event was of sufficient significance that a party of North Americans..." hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence, I hope it is fixed now.  Alex  (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence, I hope it is fixed now.  Alex  (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just shifted to opposing for the moment. The article appears to have been completely rewritten by another editor in last 48hrs. This has introduced at least one grammatical error (i haven't read it through), changed facts (eg. godparents), changed images without an explanation that I could follow, and has introduced significant reliance on a mid-19th century text, which would not normally be acceptable. I'm not sure about the POV and accuracy of this lede sentence "Pedro Afonso was the much needed male heir to the throne, which had been put in jeopardy by the death of his older brother Dom Afonso." What is meant by "much needed" male heir? It is written as though that is the view of WP article, but clearly an alternative heir existed, it's just that the Emperor didn't like her prospects. What's the story?hamiltonstone (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor comments on prose/style: These details should be easy to address. I'm near to support. DrKiernan (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think "Pedro" and "Pedro II" are sufficiently disambiguating?: e.g. "he was the second son and youngest child of Emperor Dom Pedro II and Dona Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, and thus a member of the Brazilian branch of the House of Braganza. After the demise of Pedro's older brother, Dom Afonso," can be misread as meaning that Dom Afonso was Pedro II's older brother. I wonder whether "Pedro Afonso" and "Pedro II" are more distinctive.
 * Personally, I would stipulate that Isabel was Pedro II's daughter and/or Pedro Afonso's sister in the lead.
 * "The prince's death prompted him to believe that the imperial line would end with his death." While we can deduce that Pedro II is meant here, this will not be obvious to the casual reader. The subject of the sentence is the prince, so "his death" would logically mean the prince's death.
 * "Pedro's baptism took place on 4 October of the same year": the year is two paragraphs away. I recommend replacing "of the same year" with 1848.
 * "Barman believes that the births of his children": the subject of the sentence is Barman so "his children" would logically be Barman's children.
 * I don't see the point of the style box. The image is too small to be useful; the two upper lines repeat information given elsewhere and any male of any age in any country can be called "Sir", so that isn't a defining or definitive characteristic.
 * I would be willing to modify all references of "Pedro" to "Pedro Afonso", but don't you think that would require a page move?
 * Done.
 * I've changed it, I hope it's fixed now.
 * Done.
 * I've changed it.
 * I've removed the style box.  Alex  (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you for the changes. I don't think the article needs to be moved. It might be possible to avoid changing the names by a bit of copy-editing: like so. See what you think. It looks OK to me. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, the article looks OK to me too.  Alex  (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Infobox pic: try to get a bigger version from which you can make a closer crop of the Prince Imperial. If not possible, mention in the caption which one is Pedro.
 * Titles and styles: what's with the weird bolded formatting of the dates? It's redundant to "The prince's full style..." anyway. I suggest just changing it a bit and making it a single paragraph--"During the prince's lifetime, his full style . . . Dignitary of the latter order", which you can move to the end of Birth. There's no need of a separate sub/section for a couple of sentences.
 * Aftermath: the two paragraphs seem to go over the same ground because the section isn't chronologically written. For eg: "harbingers of the imperial system's imminent end" and later "it would not survive him". Also the stuff about women (Pedro II's personal respect for them, their status, the traditional view and his not training his daughter) would be better off together. I think you should rewrite/rearrange the section chronologically--starting with "Even though Brazil..." to avoid repetition.
 * Everywhere you've just used the English name for places. So why "Convento de Santo Antônio (Convent of Saint Anthony)"?

This is a nice, compact article. I look forward to supporting it.—indopug (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback.
 * I've changed the caption, since I can't seem to find any other pictures of Pedro.
 * It is very common to have an entire subsection saved for titles, styles, honors and arms. See Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, Princess Helena of the United Kingdom etc.
 * "harbingers of the empire's imminent end" is not the same with "the empire would not survive him." Nonetheless, I've joined the two sentences about how women were viewed at the time.
 * I though I'd include both languages in this name because the Convent does not have a Wikipedia page, unlike all of the other places I have rendered in English.  Alex  (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - a nice article, interesting to read and well-referenced. Just some minor nitpicks, not withholding support:
 * lead "Paço de São Cristóvão" => while not the "official" name, i'd use "Palace of São Cristóvão" here. Especially in the lead the content should be clear without the need to follow links.
 * "rockets and artillery, and was followed by a grand fête day at court ... and by illuminations and displays of various sorts and public rejoicings;" => is this a contemporary description (Pedro IIs?) or just the historian's view? Needs in-text attribution to clarify (WP:CITE).
 * "(Pedro II's childhood [aia])" => i know, this has been mentioned before, but the situation could be improved adding the closest English language translation. Maybe (Pedro II's childhood maid, his "[aia]") or "tutor", etc. The English context needs to be included immediately, whereever possible.
 * "stressed that the princes and princesses secured the dynasty's future." => in-text attribution for quote? If it's Kraay himself again, this may be skipped here in close proximity (but he should atleast be attributed once with the first quote).
 * "The Emperor regarded [Afonso and Pedro's deaths] ..." => Not really sure here, but "Afonso's" looks more natural (or just "those deaths", both names are available in the previous sentence).
 * File:Benedito_Calixto_-_Proclama%C3%A7%C3%A3o_da_Rep%C3%BAblica,_1893.jpg - tweaked tag to PD-old-70 (no action required). If the artist died 1927, PD-old-100 doesn't work.
 * Images look fine copyright-wise.
 * Article size is fine (imo) for this kind of topic, all relevant facts seem to have been included (AGF that all notable reliable sources have been used). GermanJoe (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support.
 * I've changed it.
 * I've added a note clarifying the quote.
 * I've modified the sentence, I hope it's better understood now.
 * I've hopefully resolved the problem with the first quote, so there shouldn't be any problem here.
 * I've changed "Afonso" to "Afonso's".  Alex  (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweaks, all Done. I changed the fourth point and included an immediate in-text attribution (please check). I know, the whole "according to" phrase can get tiresome to read, but quotes need to follow WP:CITE in that regard (unless the speaker is really obvious within the context). GermanJoe (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - nice work. --Carioca (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Source spotcheck -- I'm gathering, Alex, that this is your first FAC, and a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing is one of the rituals that a newbie undergoes. Based on the English-language sources I checked, no issues of paraphrasing but see below for queries re. information:
 * FN13a: Mostly there, but I didn't see the actual term "Prince Imperial" on the cited page.
 * The title for the heir apparent is "Prince Imperial", so it's sort of implied.
 * Well I think we should be able to do better than 'sort of imply' it and cite something that makes it clear. Remember that what may seem obvious or mundane to you may not be so to others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added another reference, I hope it's alright now.


 * FN13b: Okay.
 * FN14: Okay.
 * FN18a: Okay.
 * FN18b: I feel we're taking a bit more from the cited page that is really there. Pedro's sense of personal loss may be documented elsewhere but doesn't seem to be referred to on this page, and I think the reference to 'destiny speaking' is a bit of a way from "harbingers of the imperial system's imminent end"
 * FN18b is linked to the poem, are you sure you have it right?
 * No, you're right about FN18b, that's fine. FN24 is what I was referring to above. It may be that the concern can be alleviated by adding FN18 to FN24. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On Pedro II of Brazil (which has passed FA), Barman 1999, p. 262, is used to reference the following sentence: "He viewed the death of his two sons as being a sign that the Empire was destined to be supplanted." As far as I see it, it's pretty much the same sentence altered a bit. I could change the sentence in Pedro Afonso's article so it would resemble the one on his father's article. What do you think?

Furthermore, I couldn't see any referencing for the Ancestors chart. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FN19: Okay.
 * I don't see a problem with the unreferenced Ancestors chart because these are modern times we're speaking about, it's not like we're unsure who married who or who fathered who.  Alex  (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're not unsure then there shouldn't be an issue cited it. Alternatively, if all these connections were referenced in the main body of the article, I wouldn't be asking to have the chart cited but I'm not sure that's the case. FA is deliberately strict on citing material and as a delegate I've always expected to see ancestor charts for royalty cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pedro I of Brazil cites the ancestry back to Barman 1999, would that work? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ed. I've added the reference and I hope the ancestry chart is alright now.  Alex  (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Lecen

I'm starting my review. It will take at most a day. I'd like to ask the delegates to wait until I'm finished before closing this review. --Lecen (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, looking fwd to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm glad someone else other than me and Astynax was willing to take a shot on these articles. This article in particular had some serious issues which I believe were caused by wrong translations. I believe I fixed them all. See the article's history log. I also had to remove the paintings because I'm now living in the US and my books are kept behind in Brazil. I'd be able to check the pages from which the paintings were scanned only on January 2014. Good job! --Lecen (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I removed Longo from the bibliography because his books presents many issues. Many of his sources are mere interviews with a romance writer. I also asked Astynax to review my edits and improve or correct whatever is needed. --Lecen (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Longo is published by what appears to be a reputable publishing house, and at least it was released in the last hundred years, which is better than some other sources. Can you set out your objections in a bit more detail in relation to the uses of Longo relied upon in this particular WP article? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merely because he is published by a "reputable publishing house" doesn't mean that he should be used. Take a look at his sources: they are mostly interviews he had with author Gloria Kaiser, who is not a historian, but a romance writer. She wrote books such as "Pedro II of Brazil: Son of the Habsburg Empress" and "Dona Leopoldina: The Habsburg Empress of Brazil". We are not talking about an actual research, or primary sources, or even secondary sources. But an interview. And I merely removed Longo because his book was no longer needed as source, something that I did to other books as well in the article.


 * I changed the godparents because the info was wrong. Simple as that. The editor who wrote this article simply translated a piece of text from the Portuguese Wikipedia without checking the source (or other sources). I fixed the problem.


 * I changed the pictures because I was the person who uploaded them. And to have them accepted in here we would need the pages from the books I scanned them. Unfortunately, I'm now in the USA and I will only return to Brazil next year. I don't think this FAC will be able to wait until January 2014.


 * The opinion of Carneiro Leão it's important to show the view of a leading figure and of the thought of the ruling elite of Brazil. It's used to back the informatio given by historians such as Roderick J. Barman.


 * Pedro Afonso was the much needed male heir because a female heir was unacceptable. Did you even read the article? Or Empire of Brazil? Or Pedro II of Brazil? A female would never be accepted by the politicians or by the military of 19th century Brazil. That the prince is mentioned in the lead as the "much needed heir" it's because he lead it's supposed to be a short summary of the article. See "Legacy" to better understand the problem. --Lecen (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * During your review, you've completely rewritten the article and every single comment here is now invalid. I don't see why you would have done that instead of requesting changes or suggesting new sources.  Alex  (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

By points: Concluding, as I said the article as it was before I reviewed could never become a FA. The reviewers should have read the sources. Should have made a careful check to see if the article was correct. No one did that. The article as it is now it's fine and has my support. --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the reviewers before me bothered to take a look at sources to see if what was written in the article was correct. People were giving "support" all over the place even though the article was full of errors. Either the reviewers did not review or they have no actual knowledge of the subject. Either option demonstrate that their reviews and subsequent "support"(or "oppose") have no weight.
 * I did not rewrite the article. People see a a couple of different pictures and they complain that the article is "completely different".
 * The pictures were replaced because I uploaded the original ones. To keep the formers ones their sources would need the pages from the books I used to scan them. Right now I'm in the USA and I'm unable to check my books back in Brazil. Thus I replaced them with pictures that can be used in the article.
 * The first error I caught in the article was Pedro Afonso's full name. "Miguel" was missing. No one noticed.
 * "Royal" was used instead of "Imperial" to describe the Imperial family, palaces, etc...
 * The article said he had three godparents. In Brazil you can only have one godfather and one godmother, That's it. There are no exceptions.
 * Queen Stephanie of Portugal was said to be Pedro Afonso's godmother. She was 10 years old by the time he was baptized. She would only become Queen consort of Portugal in 1858, eight years after the prince's death. His actual godmother was Pedro II's stepmother, whom he considered, for all effects, his actual mother. I have no idea from where the name Stephanie was taken from because every sources says was Amélie. No one noticed this big error, which shows that no one looked into the source.
 * The Countess of Belmonte was described as a godmother. She represented the actual godmother. All sources say that.
 * The article said that the four children was what matured Pedro II. Historian Roderick J. Barman is quite clear in his book that it was the birth of Afonso, Pedro II's first child, that matured him. Saying that all, including Pedro Afonso affected Pedro II is to go beyond what the source meant.
 * It is said that Pedro II decided to spend the summer in Santa Cruz in 1849 but Pedro Afonso died in 1850. The article should have been more clear that the decision may have been taken in 1849, but they only went there in 1850. The way was written before seemed like a typo.
 * The article said that Pedro Afonso died of typhoid fever. The sources used to not tell what caused his death. I have seen some books saying that he died of yellow fever, which had afflicted Brazil for the first time in the summer of 1850, leading to tens of thousands of death.
 * A courtier in charge of Santa Cruz is given the name "Senhor Macêdo". "Senhor" is not a name. It means merely "Mr" in English. Bad translation.
 * A source used is "Longo, James McMurtry (2008). Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves". Check the reference section in the book. Most references are interviews the author had with a romance writer, not a historian. Should the book be used as source? I don't think so. That's why I removed it and changed for other sources that are trustworthy.
 * I did add Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná's speech to show what the politicians thought about the subject of succession. It was used merely to back Roderick J. Barman's opinion that the ruling circles wouldn't accept a female on the throne. To claim that the text is based on a 19th century opinion means that the person didn't read the article or is acting on bad faith.
 * Oppose, suggest withdrawal

The article has completely changed during FAC. None of the comments previously made here are relevant any longer—a tremendous waste of reviewers' time. Withdraw from FAC, sort out the issues (there seem to be major ones) on the talk page, ensure that the article is stable (it's been completely rewritten twice in just two weeks), and return in a couple of months.—indopug (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments in response to Lecen's observations, above. I expect that the article is better for Lecen's edits, and these comments are not meant to detract from that.
 * "I did not rewrite the article". You don't see these changes (and more) that you made as a rewrite? That's a high bar you're setting.
 * I have no issue with your observation about the pictures, though I'm not clear whether the absence of the actual page number would have prevented their acceptance.
 * The cited source for the godparents prior to revision, in this version, was: Brazilian Ministry of Education and Health (1953). "Anuário do Museu Imperial". Anuário do Museu Imperial (Petrópolis: Departamento de Imprensa Nacional). It is an offline source, and I don't read Portuguese in any case, so i presumed it was OK. You indicate above there were several errors around the godparents. Have you (or someone else) been able to check that 1953 source? It would concern me if the sources contradicted each other but we didn't report the contradiction.
 * You state "The article said that Pedro Afonso died of typhoid fever. The sources used to not tell what caused his death." Well that is only because you have set aside Longo, which on page 87 (as cited in the WP article before you revised it) stated exactly that. I am unable to view the footnotes for chapter 16 of the book in question (which includes page 87), but the bibliography in general shows considerable depth. I would reject your objection, "Most references are interviews the author had with a romance writer, not a historian. Should the book be used as source? I don't think so." when weighing it against the publisher, general appearance, bibliography of the book, and that the author is a college professor.  Unless you can show that Longo's source is erroneous by producing superior contradictory reliable sources, i think it should stand and be reinstated where appropriate.
 * You suggest that it was a "bad translation" to have referred to Senhor Macedo because Senhor is not a name. I can't speak for others, but I did not think Senhor was a name when I read "In a letter to the courtier in charge at Santa Cruz, Senhor Macedo..." I took it to be a form of address, as indeed it was.
 * It was me who wrote in a comment that the revision "has introduced significant reliance on a mid-19th century text..." your defence against this point says "I did add Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná's speech to show what the politicians thought about the subject of succession. It was used merely to back Roderick J. Barman's opinion that the ruling circles wouldn't accept a female on the throne." I have no idea what this is about. My concern refers to Moreira de Azevedo 1866, p. 307, which is cited five times across a range of content (there are several other facts cited to other mid-nineteenth century sources). I remain unclear about whether this is generally regarded as acceptable - it is true that there were some mid-nineteenth century sources in the earlier version too.
 * I have no particular issue with other of Lecen's points and as i said at the start, i expect the article is stronger now. It is true I didn't read sources, since all were offline and most not in English, but the accusation of bad faith seemed a bit harsh. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you weren't clear about what 19th century source you were talking I figured it out it was Honorio's speech. I take back what I said, I'm sorry. Moreira de Azevedo was taken from the Brazilian Historic and Geographic Institute's journal, probably the most respected in Brazil. The Institute's journal is widely used by historians. Make a quick search on google books for "Revista do Instituto Histórico" and you'll find. --Lecen (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Given the article's reworking by Lecen, and in conversation with Graham, I had considered restarting the review, however I don't think this makes a great deal of sense if the nominator's heart is no longer in it, as seems the case. I'm therefore going to archive it and hope that it may return at a later stage, whoever nominates (or co-nominates!) it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)