Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pedro II of Brazil/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 19:35, 28 October 2010.

Pedro II of Brazil

 * Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) and &bull; Astynax 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. Lecen (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:
 * Refs 365, 421 require dashes not hyphens in page ranges
 * Same two refs require "pp." not "p."
 * No citations to the Bethell book. Further reading?
 * Ditto Lima book
 * Ditto Silva book

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto for 329 has a stray, 354 why caps?  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thanks for finding those. For 365 and 421, the hyphens have now been coverted to ndashes and corrected to use pp. for the range of pages. The problem with "Bethell" was a misspelling in the link, which has been corrected. The Lima and Silva books were left over from citing material since moved to subarticles and have been removed. The extra parenthesis has been removed from 329, and the Roman numerals in 354 have been made lower case (Barman's book uses upper case numerals in its TOC, and lower case on the pages themselves). &bull; Astynax talk 03:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as GA reviewer. I found this to be a compelling article, showing both his reverence and quality as emperor and his intrapersonal struggles with being emperor. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - well done. I never knew Brazil had an emperor. This article is a fine example of something that is not historically well-known, but still very important. Dincher (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - meets FA?. Senhordopoder (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments leaning oppose. It has problems with the tone, sounds too postitive, so there's still work to be done with the article.
 * Pedro II grew into a man with a strong sense of duty and devotion toward his country and his people. WP:NPOV
 * "emerging power in the international arena" - again tone
 * zealously-guarded, vibrant, etc all in the lead.
 * The Emperor, a savant in his own right - explain how he became a savant in the lead
 * Pedro II represents a rare, perhaps unique... Tone
 * after a long conflict - why the conflict.
 * Why he selected those three people to take guard of his son, one is explained but the other two are not.
 * contact with his sisters was limited. Why?
 * Disputes between political factions led to several rebellions and resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, situation under the regents. - explain
 * The young Emperor was diligent in his new role - tone, how diligent
 * His taciturn nature manifested a suspicion of close relationships... that sentence made me confused, though it was explained, maybe a rewrite?
 * deftly used by the courtiers.. How he was used?
 * clearly disappointed, clearly an idealization, I'm far from an expert in prose, but I could see that has problems.
 * "handsome man" - tone
 * The Emperor's great successes - tone remove "great"
 * The marriage between Pedro II and Teresa Cristina started off badly. How badly.
 * Explain how he developed a "dual identity"
 * I'm only at the Patron of arts and sciences section, review to be continued tommorrow morning. Thanks Secret account 04:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. The "too positive" tone you are detecting is something widely represented in the sources. I'm not certain how you propose addressing that without presenting a PoV which doesn't reflect references. Historians do blame him (later on in the article) for the collapse of the Empire, but he is praised for his personal diligence and many successes in welding together nation, engendering a sense of national identity, ending slavery, maintaining democratic institutions, creating a modern infrastructure, etc. In those instances where you want more information, details have been spun off into subarticles, some of which are still in process of being expanded. Item by item:
 * Pedro II grew into a man with a strong sense of duty and devotion toward his country and his people. WP:NPOV —The words "duty" and "devotion" are used in the body of the article to describe Pedro II, and those words accurately summarize the consensus of historians. He is presented as stuck in a job which gave him little joy, but maintained a workaholic schedule and noted self-denial because of both a sense of duty and patriotism.
 * "emerging power in the international arena" - again tone —This is an accurate summary of the reference given.
 * zealously-guarded, vibrant, etc all in the lead. —Both the people and the Imperial government regarded freedom of speech as sacrosanct, and the economy went through a period of prosperity and development unparalleled in Brazilian history (until very recently). That is a summary of what the article says, and the references support.
 * The Emperor, a savant in his own right - explain how he became a savant in the lead —His intellectual pursuits and accomplishments are explained later in the article and subarticles.
 * Pedro II represents a rare, perhaps unique... Tone —The wording seems an accurate summary, unless there is some source that says it is historically commonplace for extremely popular monarchs to sabotage their children's chances at succession and willingly allow themselves be deposed by a tiny faction with little popular or military support.
 * after a long conflict - why the conflict. —This is detailed in the article on Pedro I of Brazil, and is not a part of Pedro II's reign.
 * Why he selected those three people to take guard of his son, one is explained but the other two are not. —The article says that these were people Pedro I trusted. I'm not sure there is much more to be said. If there are references that give details as to Pedro I's reasoning during the few hours prior to his abdication, then those can be added.
 * contact with his sisters was limited. Why? —His highly-regimented routine is described in the Early life of Pedro II of Brazil subarticle.
 * Disputes between political factions led to several rebellions and resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, situation under the regents. - explain —The political chaos is explained in the "Regency" section of Early life of Pedro II of Brazil.
 * The young Emperor was diligent in his new role - tone, how diligent —Again, this is what the sources say. I'm unsure as to why you would see that as a problem in "tone" (had it been that the sources said he was "neglectful", would you have raised this?).
 * "His taciturn nature manifested a suspicion of close relationships..." that sentence made me confused, though it was explained, maybe a rewrite? —I'm unsure as to what is confusing, as it seems accurate and clear on rereading. Suggestions?
 * deftly used by the courtiers.. How he was used? —This is as summary of details provided in the Early life of Pedro II of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil consolidation subarticles.
 * clearly disappointed, clearly an idealization, I'm far from an expert in prose, but I could see that has problems. —The repeated "clearly" has been reworded.
 * "handsome man" - tone —Again, the word is used by the sources, but I've reworded.
 * The Emperor's great successes - tone remove "great" —Reworded.
 * The marriage between Pedro II and Teresa Cristina started off badly. How badly. —This was previously explained in the section on their marriage.
 * Explain how he developed a "dual identity" —We could suppose that it was a method of coping, but that would be WP:OR, unless there are studies which provide psychological insight into when and how. It becomes more apparent toward the end of the reign and article.
 * The article is already around 99k, and it defeats the purpose of summarizing the content of subpages to have to put back more details. &bull; Astynax talk 08:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Crossed out the comments, will add more later. With Teresa Cristina and Pedro, it explains that she wasn't what Pedro expected was that the reason why the relationship started out badly? Thanks Secret account 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Disappointment of the unrealistic expectations which had been encouraged was the immediate problem. That it was an arranged marriage—another unwanted undertaking in a life where everything was circumscribed by the requirements of the office—must have added to his unhappiness. Unable to express it in any other way, he took it out in undisguised dislike of poor Teresa Cristina, who was as victimized by the whole process as Pedro. Unlike many other monarchial matches, they did eventually form an affectionate relationship, though I don't think it could be called romantic. I wish someone would publish a study in English of the domestic aspect of these two lives—it might form the basis for a great movie script (well, in my dreams), as well as help expand this aspect of the article and the article on Teresa. &bull; Astynax talk 18:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it had a negative tone the article, I would have raised it up of course, I'll finish my review when I get out of class in a couple of hours, but I'll likely Support. Secret account 20:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok a few more comments, as most of it is explained in the subsections.
 * with funds from his civil list - explain
 * international reputation skyrocketed - reword skyrocketed
 * proved to be a great success - remove great
 * female successor as antithetical - why he considered that other than the quote that was given and subarticle doesn't explain why. (that feels important for the article regardless of length), if there's isn't a reason on the books it's explainable.
 * That's all the comments I could give, I'm not an expert of prose and the rest of the things are mentioned in the subarticles. Support Secret account 23:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply:
 * I have changed "civil list" to "civil list income" to make it clear that this was from his income. The term "civil list" is wikilinked 3 paragraphs above, so a repeated wikilink didn't seem appropriate.
 * The word "skyrocketed" has been changed and I've made the sentence more specific in describing what the reputation involved.
 * Changed "great success" to "success" as suggested.
 * I have expanded a bit on the resistance to a female successor. It was mostly a traditionalist view of whether a woman could handle the factious, male-dominated political system. The sources used for the subarticle hint that Isabel's accession could have been a foreordained disaster, not only because of the traditional attitudes of the society, but because Isabel's husband was very unpopular and because her father had not provided her with any educational preparation for becoming the head of state and did not allow her to watch or participate in governing until near the very end. Instead, he seemed to have been hoping for a transition from constitutional monarchy to some sort of republic like those he had observed in the United States and France.
 * Thanks for the comments. &bull; Astynax talk 08:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noy yet. --Lecen (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please contact a regular image reviewer? Someone like User:Jappalang, User:Stifle, User:J milburn, User:David Fuchs....  Thanks Karanacs (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! --Lecen (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: Looking at the images-
 * For the images sourced to CD Família Imperial, I'm assuming that is literally a CD full of pics that has been distributed?
 * There's no evidence File:Princess Isabel and Leopoldina 1855.jpg was published before 1923, but the other tag seems sufficient. Same for File:Pedro II 1858.jpg and File:Familia imperial 1861.jpg- the "PD in the US as published at X time" tag seems entirely superfluous, as all of these people died a long time ago. There are a few others like this- I won't list them, as it's not a big deal, but if I was being picky...
 * File:Pedro II of Brazil in Egypt 1871.jpg- do we know a date of death for the stated authors?
 * File:Pedro II of Brazil Niagara Falls 1876.png- Again, date of death?
 * File:Família Imperial por Otto Hees.jpg is not public domain for another few months. It will become PD on Jan 1 next year, unless it is already public domain for another reason. If it was published more than seventy years ago, it would be public domain in Brazil, but it would not also be public domain in the United States unless it was published there at some point as per the tag used (we'd need evidence) or published in Brazil seventy years prior to 1996, as per Template:PD-US-1996. That's a rather fiddly one- I'd say it should probably be deleted and restored in a few months...
 * Do we have an author for File:Leopoldina de braganca.jpg?
 * Generally, it's fine- not perfect, but certainly ok. The only problem file seems to be File:Família Imperial por Otto Hees.jpg- until the copyright status of that image is clarified, this should not be promoted. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Milburn. Thanks for taking your time to take a look at the article. All those photographic works were commonly sold across Brazil. They were not kept hidden for 150 years and only now have been published, if that's what you are worried about. In other words: all of them were published before 1923. "CD Família Imperial" is a CD full of photos of the Brazilian Imperial Family which is sold in the Imperial Museum in Petrópolis. Again, thanks, --Lecen (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some evidence of that would be useful. If you have evidence that the most problematic picture was published in Brazil before 1923, it would be in the public domain in both Brazil and the United States, and so would be legit. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The picture was taken in 1889, 34 years later it must have been published somewhere, since it is one the most famous ever taken of the Emperor. Does every single article that is now regarded as featured had to prove that all its images were published before 1923? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I found this: "Nascido em 1870, Otto ganhou projeção muito jovem, aos 19 anos, ao fotografar a Família Imperial na escadaria do Palácio Isabel em Petrópolis, poucas semanas antes da partida para o exílio. A foto tornou-se célebre e marcou o início de Otto Hees na carreira fotográfica [...]". Translation: "Born in 1870, Otto won projection very young, at age 19, when he photographed the Imperial Family at the stairs of the Palace Isabel in Petrópolis, few weeks before the departure to the exile. The photo became renowned and marked the beginning of Otto Hess in the photographic career [...]" (Source: Lago, Pedro Correa do. Coleção Princesa Isabel: Fotografia do século XIX. Capivara, 2008, p.234 ISBN 9788589063258). Well, isn't that clear that the photo was published around 1889? --Lecen (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That may not hold true. Otto might have taken the photograph at the age of 19, but what did he do with the photograph to start his career (which started when?).  If he put up the photograph on display at an exhibition, that would fall under "disclosure" but not "publication" (which is a smaller subset of "disclosure".  It would be "published" only when several copies of it become available to the public by his intent, e.g. having it printed in books or newspaper, or making copies of it and selling/giving them away.
 * Key questions for File:Família Imperial por Otto Hees.jpg would be was it published or disclosed, and when was it done so? Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What I trasncribed here earlier is the a pirce of text of an expert in history of photograph in Brazil. And he is quite clear: Otto Hess, who began working with his father, Pedro Hess (another well known profissional photographer in 19th Century Brazil), became a renowned photographer at age 19 when he took the last photopgrah of the Brazilian Imperial family before it was exiled on 15 November 1889.


 * "Não raro, constavam desses álbuns retratos das grandes personalidades da cena política e cultural, disponíveis para aquisição nos estúdios fotográficos como hoje o são, nas bancas de jornais, os cartões-postais de estrelas de cinema ou de ídolos da música pop. Retratos de Dom Pedro II podiam ser comprados nos mais importantes ateliês brasileiros e mesmo no exterior, já que o imperador era uma personalidade respeitada internacionalmente. Prova disso é que seu retrato foi incluído na coleção de imagens de celebridades lançada por Félix Potin (um dos primeiros grands magasins franceses) e reproduzido em posição de destaque e em ponto maior do que personalidades norte-americanas, como o escritor Mark Twain, na fotomontagem Men of Mark, do fotógrafo William H. Rulofson. Em virtude de tal costume, a presença de Dom Pedro II ou de Carlos Gomes em muitos álbuns de família não significa necessariamente que seus membros ancestrais gozavam de livre trânsito na Corte ou privavam de intimidade dos artistas do Império. Isto porque, neste sentido, os álbuns de família se assemelhavam às atuais agendas de adolescentes, nas quais a presença de seus ídolos é mais expressão de um anseio de intimidade do que a comprovação de um relacionamento concreto."


 * Translation: "Not rarely, there were on these [private] albums portraits of personalities of the political and cultural scenario, available for acquisition in the photographic studios as today are, in newsstands, postcards of movie stars or pop music idols. Portraits of Dom Pedro II could be bought in the most important Brazilian studios and even in the foreign, since the emperor was an internationaly respected personality. A proof of that was that his portrait was included in the collection of celebrities' images published by Félix Potin (on of the first French grands magasins) and reproduced in position of prominence and in greater importance than North-American personalities, such as the writer Mark Twain, in the photomontage Men of Mark, of photographer William H. Rulofson. In virtue of such custom, the presence of Dom Pedro II or Carlos Gomes in many family albums does not necessarily mean that their ancestral members had free access into the Court or had the right to intimicy of the artists of the Empire. That because, in that sense, the family albums were more similar to nowadays teenage diaries, where the presence of idols it is more the expression of the desire of intimicy than the evidence of a true relationship." Source: Argon, Maria de Fátima Moraes (org.). Text of Pedro Karp Vasquez. Família Imperial - Álbum de retratos. Petrópolis: Museu Imperial, 2002, pp.35-36 --Lecen (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If that source states copies of Hess's works were all available to customers (publication) within years of their creation, that will be good. However, like I said on your talk page, such information should be provided on the image's page in the Description field or such, helping others to verify the nature of the photograph.  Jappalang (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The source does not say that. It said that pictures of Pedro II were widely available not only in Brazil, but also in the USA and Europe. The first source I brought said "Otto won projection very young, at age 19, when he photographed the Imperial Family at the stairs of the Palace Isabel in Petrópolis, few weeks before the departure to the exile. The photo became renowned and marked the beginning of Otto Hess in the photographic career". If he became renowned at age 19 (that is, in 1889), as well as the picture, it is because it became widely known in the country, at least. Because if he had shown the picture for a few people and that's all it wouldn't have made him known. Again, does every single article that has been nominated to featured status had to proof that its pictures were published before 1923? Including a picture taken in 1889? --Lecen (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a Featured Article does not need to have every of its picture published before 1923. The pictures it uses have to comply with the policies and guidelines of the servers that they are stored and used on, per WP:WIAFA criterion 3.  In the case of Wikipedia, this means copyrighted images have to comply with WP:NFCC and "free" images have to be in the US public domain or appropriately licensed to be used for all purposes.  In the case of Commons, images have to be either appropriately licensed for all purposes, or be in the public domain of both the US and the images' country of origin.  Being in the public domain simply means that an image is not protected by the copyright laws of that country, either by virtue of expiry or because it failed to comply with certain regulations.  An image does not need to be published before 1923 to be in the US public domain (take a look at File:PD-US_table.svg).  Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. But I still don't know what is wrong with that photograph. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to write in its page that it was a famous picture when it was taken and it made its photographer renowned? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the key advice here is to tidy up the information on the images used in this article. Those that were not published (copies made available to the people) before 1923 should not have the  license.  If they were unpublished before 2003, then they would qualify for the commons:Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished tag (although the  would also suffice).  Paintings are generally unpublished unless the artist made and sold copies of the work.  Photographs are best supported with information that they were published and on the year claimed.  For this particular photograph, I am unsure if it was published, although it was certainly disclosed to the public if it had given its author fame at the age of 19; if it was unpublished before 2003, the earliest year of expiry for its US copyright would be 2011.  Jappalang (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before: photograhic works of the Emperor were widely available for the public. I know for sure that this was an official portrait of the Emperor and his family. Also: "Moved by his huge curiosity or at the will of his trips, the Emperor gathered one of the largest collections of photograhies of his time -, more than 20,000 images donated by him to the National Library after his departure for the exile. This collection of great importance was officially recognized by UNESCO, in 2003, as "Documentary heritage of humankind" (Source: Lago, Bia Corrêa do. Os fotógrafos do Império: a fotografia brasileira no Século XIX. Rio de Janeiro: Capivara, 2005, p.xvii). Even if all copies of the photo had been destroyed in 1889, except for the emperor's own copy, it was already available for the public at least since 1891 (the year he donated his collection of photos and also when he died). So the present tag is correct. And even if it wasn't, I have a book published in 1975 in here with a reproduction of the picture. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if we are communicating to each other clearly. Regarding the photograph of Pedro II and his family:
 * It was created in 1889. That much is agreed.
 * It was at least disclosed in 1889, according to the source that states the photograph was its author's cause of fame.
 * When was it published? That is the question.  Since Hees lived till 1940, it is not improbable he might have kept some photographs from sale until later in his life.  Disclosure is not exactly publication as stated above.  Furthermore, publication is only valid if the copyright owner (usually Hees or his heir) is the one who authorised his work to be available to all.
 * Thus, the last part (which year) is the sticky point if the the photograph was published. The same then goes for other images that have the  tag.  Jappalang (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in the third line - below Autor (Author) and Título (Title) - entitled Publicação (Publication) it is written "[189-?]" which means that it was published sometime during the 1890s. This is the official website of the National Library of Brazil, where the 20,000 photos that belonged to Pedro II (as mentioned by me earlier) can be found since 1891. Is that what you wanted?  --Lecen (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that indeed would help. Please add it to the image page's fields as future reference to help possible re-users of the image.  Jappalang (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! --Lecen (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that settles things for Hees's photograph; since the image review is started by, I think you should ask him to revisit his concerns. Jappalang (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant- PD in Brazil because it was published more than 70 years ago, PD in the US because it was published before 1923. Resolved, I have no further objections based on the images, feel free to strike or collapse my comments. J Milburn (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you all, guys. You've helped a lot. Thanks for taking your time to review the article! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review image captions throughout for correct punctuation (see WP:MOS). Also, the article appears seriously overcited-- numerous seemingly simple statements have three, four, five even six citations. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes:
 * Done! Astynax has resolved the punctuation issues and I have removed some of the sources. I left some with four (like his full name) due to their possible contentious potential. Is that good enough? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments beginning a lookover now, concentrating mainly on prose. I'll jot queries below. I am not familiar with the topic so might pop up some other questions: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 *  Great care was taken to guide him away from his father's example in matters related to education, character and personality - erm, why? I am unfamiliar with the subject so am not familiar with what is going on here. Some adjectives for his father's approach to those issues here would be good.


 * This heading End of slavery and overthrown just looks very odd. Can it be rephrased?
 * Reply. Thanks for going over the article and rewording some of the quoted material. I've rephrased the sentence regarding his father's character to read "Great care was taken in his education to foster values and a character different than the impulsiveness and irresponsibility which had been displayed by his father." The subsection heading has also been changed to "Abolition and revolution", which I hope reads better. &bull; Astynax talk 09:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Astynax, wouldn't be better something like "Slavery abolition and republican coup d'état"? I don't believe everyone will link the word abolition directly to slavery abolition and the coup was certainly no revolution. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think short headings are better whenever possible (particularly when viewed on small screens). If there is better wording, I won't object. I think revolution is accurate when an imperial system is overthrown to create a republican system. Not all revolutions are violent. &bull; Astynax talk 17:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's a start. I'll take another look and copyedit but I have concerns along the lines of Andy Walsh's below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a, 1c, and 1d. I've read a good chunk of the article, and I'm very much concerned about the highly hagiographic tone. Throughout the article, the prose is rich and entertaining, but it too frequently crosses into being "laudatory" as you also describe the sources. Even if the sources used adopt that tone, we need to adopt a neutral tone here. The overall impression is not one of neutrality, and I have to question whether independent critical works have been consulted. I think the whole thing needs treatment from a neutral editor whose native language is English to smooth out the many language glitches.
 * Some examples sentences that need toning down:
 * "A savant in his own right, the Emperor established a reputation as a vigorous sponsor of learning, culture and the sciences."
 * "he is usually ranked as the greatest Brazilian." ?? By whom, and using what measures?
 * "A national holiday was declared and the return of the Emperor as a national hero was celebrated throughout the country"
 * "Prince Pedro spent little time with his stepmother, who ultimately abandoned the country two years later." Abandoned the country? Why not just "left"? The narrative here is confusing—is this abandonment the same event as going to Portugal later in the para?
 * "With growth, his weaknesses faded and his strengths of character came to the fore."
 * "the Father of the People personified"
 * Some samples of things that just need rewriting—there are grammatical problems all over the article:
 * "Of his father, 'he retained no strong images of him' in adulthood."
 * "Great care was taken in his education to foster values and a character different than the impulsiveness and irresponsibility which had been displayed by his father."
 * There are several "easter egg" links where the reader has no idea of the destination unless they hover over or click it. These are not ideal—please see WP:ASTONISH.
 * The whole transition from being exiled to dying and suddenly being seen as a model for the new republic is unclear and not supported in the text. How did this transition come about? There is little explanation for the change of heart. I understand the country fell on hard times after he was deposed—is that the sole reason?
 * A penchant for over-citation is apparent. Ex. "Pedro II was no genius[41] but he was intelligent[42] and had a facility for accumulating knowledge.[43]" It took three books to construct this sentence?
 * "The elevation of Pedro II to the Imperial throne in 1831 led to a period of crisis, the most troublesome in Brazil's history." A strong statement, that this particular crisis was the the worst ever in the history of a country that dates back to at least 1500. If anything requires multiple sources, it is such a statement. However, it is generally only relatively benign items that have multiple citations.
 * "Pedro II was deftly used by the courtiers to eliminate their foes (actual or suspected) by obtaining the dismissal of rivals." Lots of sentence like this have unclear meaning and are unsupported by anything around them.
 * "The general opinion, both at home and abroad, was that these accomplishments had been possible for two reasons: 'its governance as a monarchy and the character of Pedro II'." Again, you've made a sweeping statement meant to encompass global viewpoints and provided one citation. Are we to believe no one in the world was critical of Pedro II or his actions? If they were, why are the criticisms completely absent?
 * I think this has quite a way to go, sorry. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. Thanks for taking the time to go through the article. As for your implication that the editors have been selective in sourcing the article, what can I say, other than to request that you read the sources or provide the references you seem to think exist??? We'd be happy to include any such reliable source(s). Responses to your other points:
 * "Some examples sentences that need toning down:"
 * "A savant in his own right, the Emperor established a reputation as a vigorous sponsor of learning, culture and the sciences." Does this really need "toning down"? —This is an exceptional guy who was voted into the French Academy of Sciences and otherwise highly honored for his non-political work. He created the Brazilian educational system virtually from scratch. He sponsored and participated in all sorts of scientific and development work. He is presented this way in the references. He certainly had limitations, but that makes him no less extraordinary, and the statement reflects that.
 * "he is usually ranked as the greatest Brazilian." ?? By whom, and using what measures? —The statement is supported by the 3 references. That sentence occurs in the "Legacy" section, which gives assessments by later historians. It is further explored in the sub-article for that section. In absence of any reference to others being given that designation by Brazilian historians, the statement seems enough.
 * "A national holiday was declared and the return of the Emperor as a national hero was celebrated throughout the country" —That is what the referenced source describes as happening when his body was returned to Brazil. Why is that a problem?
 * "Prince Pedro spent little time with his stepmother, who ultimately abandoned the country two years later." Abandoned the country? Why not just "left"? The narrative here is confusing—is this abandonment the same event as going to Portugal later in the para? —The article is describing someone who took off with no notice (and without much attempt to stay or arrange things), leaving children (even stepchildren) behind, and with little apparent thought as to their duty to the nation they had sworn to uphold. "Left" isn't the word. Again, there is a subarticle which goes into more detail. The word "abandonment" also describes what references state was an issue which contributed to Pedro II's later problems, as described later in the article.
 * "With growth, his weaknesses faded and his strengths of character came to the fore." —That is what is described in the sources. Why is that a problem in tone?
 * "the Father of the People personified" —This is from the Legacy subsection which gives a variety of views regarding Pedro II. This is one of those views, supported by a reference.
 * Some samples of things that just need rewriting—there are grammatical problems all over the article:
 * "Of his father, 'he retained no strong images of him' in adulthood." —I have reworded that sentence.
 * "Great care was taken in his education to foster values and a character different than the impulsiveness and irresponsibility which had been displayed by his father." —That's the best I could do to express the thought, after the original sentence was criticized for not including the characteristics in his Pedro I which were different than those being taught to Pedro II. Suggestion?
 * I was attempting to point out that "different than" is improper. I should have just fixed it, and I will now. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "easter egg" links —Most of those I am seeing refer to titled persons or events where their article titles do not fit into the sentence. If there are specifically astonishing instances, I'm not against them being modified.
 * The whole transition from being exiled to dying and suddenly being seen as a model for the new republic is unclear and not supported in the text. How did this transition come about? There is little explanation for the change of heart. I understand the country fell on hard times after he was deposed—is that the sole reason? —There are sub-articles which attempt to explain the conditions which may have led to this situation. One of the reasons sub-articles have been created and are being expanded, is so that details can be explored and added. Depending on the person reading, there might be many more questions which might arise from the material summarized in this article. A simplistic answer to your question "How did this transition come about?" would be that there was no such transition—he was popular when he was deposed; he continued to be revered afterward. Some of the reasons his memory was used by later governments are explained in the Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil subarticle. Where this subject has been explored regarding individual governments and dictatorships, that material should be in articles for those governments.
 * Subarticles can be depending upon to a point, but not so far that the narrative in the main article is bewildering. I was pointing out that I didn't follow it at all, and I shouldn't have to click into subarticles to gain a basic understanding of the causal relationship. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A penchant for over-citation is apparent. Ex. "Pedro II was no genius[41] but he was intelligent[42] and had a facility for accumulating knowledge.[43]" It took three books to construct this sentence? —Evidently.
 * "The elevation of Pedro II to the Imperial throne in 1831 led to a period of crisis, the most troublesome in Brazil's history." A strong statement, that this particular crisis was the the worst ever in the history of a country that dates back to at least 1500. If anything requires multiple sources, it is such a statement. However, it is generally only relatively benign items that have multiple citations. —Actually, Brazil does not date back "to at least 1500". The nation only dates 9 years previous to the time mentioned in the statement. Even at that point, it was little more than a collection of regions attempting to go their own ways. One of Pedro II's achievements was to weld these into a coherent nation. Much of this article summarizes the content of sub-articles, and Early life of Pedro II of Brazil goes into more detail as to what made this such a severe period of crisis. As to the statement, it is supported directly by the citation given, and indirectly by the cite at the end of the paragraph. It shouldn't be too difficult to find an additional reference to support that the period threatened the country's existence, though I disagree that this is an extraordinary statement.
 * "Pedro II was deftly used by the courtiers to eliminate their foes (actual or suspected) by obtaining the dismissal of rivals." Lots of sentence like this have unclear meaning and are unsupported by anything around them. —Seems crystal-clear to me, even without the surrounding context. The statement is supported by a reference, and the sentence prior explains who was doing the manipulation with the following sentences explaining how they managed him to get their way.
 * "The general opinion, both at home and abroad, was that these accomplishments had been possible for two reasons: 'its governance as a monarchy and the character of Pedro II'." Again, you've made a sweeping statement meant to encompass global viewpoints and provided one citation. Are we to believe no one in the world was critical of Pedro II or his actions? If they were, why are the criticisms completely absent? —Yes, you are to believe that the sources gives this as the general opinion as to why those accomplishments were possible. It has nothing to do with criticism of Pedro II in other areas. Criticisms of Pedro II which were raised in the sources are dealt with in the article, as was noted in a previous review.
 * I am obviously defending the article against criticisms that I either don't understand or do not accept are valid. I do, however, thank you again for taking time to go through the article. &bull; Astynax talk 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is always a struggle to attempt to pick out passages that are indicative of the overall tone of the writing. I did my best, but obviously I didn't succeed in illustrating the idea. If you do not see it, it may be that you are too close to the text. I would be interested in hearing some other neutral opinions of the article's tone. Some of the passages are so overtly hagiographical that it's difficult for me to understand how you don't see it. Take "A national holiday was declared and the return of the Emperor as a national hero was celebrated throughout the country" for example, and consider the imagery invoked. Are we to believe that no significant faction in the country was counter to this sentiment? No section of the populace thought "good riddance"? If the sources reflect such language, they must be balanced by other sources to provide a neutral article. Much of your counterargument above defends the statements as being supported by the sources. That's fine—I'm not saying the existing sources were misrepresented. I'm just agog that volumes of praise were unearthed for this biography and virtually no criticism. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I struck my comment above about the narrative around his being deposed. I read some more background material as suggested by Lecen and it is much clearer. I wonder if we can introduce even an extra sentence or two of context here in the main article. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Update - After reviewing quite a few sources on my own and consulting a scholar of Brazilian history at the university here, I've decided to withdraw my opposition. I think what's written here is an accurate picture of the subject, at least how he is remembered and recorded in history. I'm not fully supporting yet because I'd like to run through the prose again, but I wouldn't want to hold up progress on the FAC. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * No mention of his acclamation in 1831?
 * In "Education":
 * "The third person was Rafael, an Afro-Brazilian veteran of the Argentina-Brazil War. Rafael was an employee in the Palace of São Cristóvão..." What sort of employee? A valet? A butler? A member of the bodyguard? Depending on his role, "servant" might be more appropriate than "employee", especially considering this was the early 19th century!
 * "He would wake at 6.30 a.m. and begin his studies at seven, continuing until 10 p.m., after which he would go to bed." I realize you are trying to give a sense of just how restrictive and "unchildlike" his early life was, but this strikes me as excessively trivial.
 * "Consolidation":
 * "A bill was promulgated on 4 September 1850..." no mention of Eusébio de Queirós? Also, a very brief mention of widespread opposition to ending the slave trade might be in order.
 * Is the tone of the article hagiographic? Yes, it most certainly is. However, this is a common issue with royalty and nobility-related articles in Wikipedia, and one supported by our policies. WP:UNDUE basically requires that Wikipedia be a reporter of the prevailing bias. This is a Good Thing™ in many fields (science, for instance) as it keeps fringe views from seeping in unopposed, but it can make for awkward reading in several areas of history. This is one case in which the vast, vast majority of reliable published sources support a near-immaculate reputation.
 * More to come soon. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for going through the article. The subarticles were considered a better place for details of some events, such as the 1831 acclamation.
 * Rafael's position isn't specified in the references used. He may not have held a specific title. We used "employee" instead of "servant" so as to make it clear that he was not a slave.
 * I can see how you might consider the description of his childhood routine as trivial. This does, however, help explain some of what came later and supports what the references note regarding his later personality that occur later in the article.
 * I agree with your statement about hagiographic tone. When an article stops reflecting the consensus of reliable sources in order to impose some sort of neutral tone, that itself becomes editial PoV. If there are significantly notable sources which give alternative takes, those should always be included. &bull; Astynax talk 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your statement about hagiographic tone. When an article stops reflecting the consensus of reliable sources in order to impose some sort of neutral tone, that itself becomes editial PoV. If there are significantly notable sources which give alternative takes, those should always be included. &bull; Astynax talk 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few instances in the article where an entire sentence (or several sentences) are quoted without any introduction. These types of quotations, if they can't be paraphrased, should be introduced somehow or attributed in text. This is especially the case because the quotes appear to be judgements rather than pure facts...example "He kept his emotions under iron discipline. He was never rude and never lost his temper. He was exceptionally discreet in words and cautious in action." Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. Done. I have, however, left other long quotations alone where a speaker's words are being reported by a source. &bull; Astynax talk 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Health and death:

Completely by chance (working on Jean-Martin Charcot), I came across this:

It looks like it could add something on his death. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Charcot is mentioned as Pedro II's personal doctor in Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. Pedro II's death is more detailed in Pedro II of Brazil exile and death. As mentioned early, many important historical characters were not mentioned in this article due to size constraint. This is why we created those sub-articles so that the subject could be further expanded. Unfortunately, due to lack of time, only three are finished (Early years, decline and legacy). --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, then, that more detail isn't needed here: perhaps that article will be useful in the daughter articles. (It may make sense for the two articles linked above to follow the same naming convention.)  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. When I begin working on Pedro II of Brazil exile and death I will request an administrator to change its name to "Exile and death of Pedro II of Brazil". --Lecen (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it an interesting read, too. I don't recall reading that he joined the French Society for the Protection of Animals. With apologies to Moss Hart (You Can't Take It with You), "My, he certainly is a joiner!" Several other useful details there. &bull; Astynax talk 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears Dom Pedro shared a deep affection for animals with Charcot. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As he explained to his brother in law, Ferdinand II of Portugal: "I don't like to hunt, killing beings, whose flesh, unappetizing to me, does not even supply me with an excuse; besides which this entertainment-as some term it-consumes much of our time." Source: Barman (1999), pp.135-136 --Lecen (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Sandy, could you also move Pedro II of Brazil consolidation to "Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil" and Pedro II of Brazil growth‎‎ to "Growth of Pedro II of Brazil"? --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See your talk-- someone should do all of this once, via a unified template. I'm not sure how to deal with the heading that is variable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support very informative and well researched. Good work!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * 1) In the section "Pedro II and politics": "The Emperor's signal political successes were achieved due largely to the non-confrontational and cooperative manner ..." Should this be "single political successes"? I don't know what it means right now.
 * 2) In "Domestic life": "Sometime around 1850, Pedro II began having discreet affairs with other women.[132] The most famous of these was Luísa Margarida Portugal de Barros, Countess of Barral, who had become governess to the emperor's daughters in August 1856." I understand why you used the past perfect "had become governess" but it is a bit jarring because the previous sentence talks about 1850. Maybe if you specified when he began his affair with her (presumably after 1856) it'd flow better.
 * 3) In "Popularity and clash with the British Empire": It's not a big deal, but the sentence "Civil liberties had been maintained,[201][202] freedom of speech being one of the most important, having existed in Brazil since independence[203] and having been strongly defended by Pedro II" seems a bit complicated to me. If it could be simplified, that'd be great, but if it can't, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply. Thanks for going through the article. I have changed "signal" to "most notable", and attempted to make the two other sentences easier to grasp.  &bull; Astynax talk 18:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The article has very engaging prose and seems to be extremely well referenced. The content is very interesting. My comments above are quite small issues and don't affect my support. I also made a handful of small edits. Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


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