Wikipedia:Peer review/Portuguese Empire/archive1

Portuguese Empire
I've listed this article for peer review because I eventually want to see this article listed as a GA, and receiving a peer review is a step in the right direction. I'm concerned about the prose, grammar, and (begrudgingly say) length of the article being the major problems, and having extra eyes to watch for my blind spots will determine how much time will have to be invested in improving the article (and if I have enough of it).

I've probably edited this article in a piecemeal fashion more than any other article I've worked on since joining the site (off-and-on for 3.5 yrs.), so it's been a long time coming for this.

Thanks for reading, LeftAire (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

– Typically, I go through each sentence in my peer reviews, but this is a bit long for that. Instead, I'm going to try to give you some more general points this time around. Here are my general thoughts on peer reviews. Runfellow (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * General thoughts
 * Are there any wikiprojects that you could consult with on this project? If they are active, these are great resources for improving articles. They know the particular MOS and structure requirements for the subject they specialize in.
 * Have you looked at some of the featured articles for other empires? For example, Empire of Brazil was promoted (and featured) in 2011 and British Empire was promoted (and featured) in 2009. Don't be afraid to copy the structure or style of those articles.
 * The automatic peer reviewer in the toolbox on this page suggests that the lead has too many paragraphs. I'd just say that the structure could use a little work. For example, since the article is generally in three eras, I'd recommend three clearly separated paragraphs detailing these eras. Others, including an intro paragraph and one on legacy, can bookend them. Currently, you don't have anything in the lead about the legacy, which would be a nice way to wrap that section up.
 * It's a pain, but consider using . See WP:LINEBREAK
 * There are about five dead links in the article. Check the "External links" in the toolbox. If you really need them, check archive.org. Let me know if you need help with this.
 * I don't remember if WP:GA requires WP:ALT, but I highly recommend adding them anyway.
 * Be careful of wikilinking to articles with phrases that don't necessarily tell the reader where they're going. Sure, experienced readers know to look at tooltips, but many regular folks don't. Therefore, "60 different sovereign states" going to Evolution of the Portuguese Empire and "great wealth" going to Economic history of Portugal might get brought up at the GA process at some point. I see many instances of this. See WP:LINKCLARITY.
 * Throughout the article, you have quite a few one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Sometimes this is okay, but consider merging these with larger paragraphs. If they don't quite fit, find a way to link the narrative in some way. This will improve the flow of the article, making it seem less like a collection of information and more like a linear story (considering you've presented it chronologically).
 * Be cautious about passive sentences, like "...an attack was made on...". This isn't just an old grammar rule; it's a way of ensuring that the actor in the sentence is always represented. For example, in the sentence I've quoted here, who ordered the attack? The Portuguese government, the monarch at the time, or the military commander of the area?
 * Not related to the peer review, just a comment: I read about Prester John for the first time last year. That's some weird, fascinating stuff.
 * Remember that quoted phrases need not be in italics, i.e. "sweet salt". See here.
 * You'll need a source in the article (not just footnote) for full sentences in quotes, such as "By 1480 Antwerp had some seventy ships engaged in the Madeira sugar trade, with the refining and distribution concentrated in Antwerp. By the 1490s Madeira had overtaken Cyprus as a producer of sugar." See WP:MOSQUOTE under the section "Attribution".
 * With phrases like "it is estimated" and "it has also been speculated" I'm always skeptical, and you'll want to tell me who estimates or speculates these things. Check the article for any phrases like this and replace them if possible with specific sources. Be wary of saying "some historians" or thing like that, too. If there is a consensus among historians, you can simply say it as fact in the article. If there isn't a general consensus, try and tell us which groups feel one way and which feel another.
 * I'm not sure about the section title "Portuguese enter the Indian Ocean" because it's clear from the article title we're talking about the Portuguese. I may be overthinking, though.
 * Along those same lines, isn't "Trade with Maritime Asia and in the Indian Ocean" a little redundant? How about "Trade with Maritime Asia"? I'm not familiar with the subject, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
 * It doesn't bother me, but the use of the word "discover" might set off a few flags for some editors down the line. I'm not sure what you'd replace it with, though.
 * Minor note: You have a closing parentheses here: "overland route via Asia Minor)" but no opening that I can see. Another minor note: check for a .". in this section.
 * Don't be afraid of short sentences. I'm all in favor of WP:SUMMARY, but that doesn't mean sentences need to tell us every bit of information about a particular subject. For example, the sentence "The Portuguese operations in Asia did not go unnoticed, and it did not take long for Magellan to arrive in the region only several years later and discover the Philippines for Spain, which in turn gave rise to the Papal Treaty of Zaragoza" is trying to express multiple ideas:
 * The Portugeuese operations were being noticed (by whom?).
 * Magellan arrived in the area and claimed the Philippines for Spain.
 * The Papal Treaty of Zaragoza resolved the conflict between Spain and Portugal.
 * I'm in the minority here, but I'm always conscious of the difference between "starting" and "beginning" something. One can "start" something one is unrelated to. For example, someone can "start" a race by firing a pistol. But one can only "begin" something one is related to or involved with. A runner will "begin" the race. That's just something to think about.
 * Minor note: wikilink vassal state
 * There are a fair number of words here that might be typical in upper-level high school or mid-level college textbooks. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, but you might want to consider using simpler words if they are available. I'm not suggesting "dumbing down" the article, just making it more accessible. A few random examples: hegemony, gentry, impressed, donotary rights (perhaps link to Donatário),
 * Is the full Dutch title of the document necessary?
 * Your first and third era sections immediately jumps into a subsection, but your second era section has a text intro. Is there any way to make it consistent?
 * Another example of the kind of sentence to break up: "After the Portuguese were defeated by the Indian rulers Chimnaji Appa of the Maratha Empire and by Shivappa Nayaka of the Keladi Nayaka Kingdom and at the end of confrontations with the Dutch, Portugal was only able to cling onto Goa and several minor bases in India, and managed to regain territories in Brazil and Africa, but lost forever to prominence in Asia as trade was diverted through increasing numbers of English, Dutch and French trading posts."
 * You've used Template:Main for most of article and Template:Further in other sections. You'll want to be consistent with this.
 * There are very few WP:NPOV issues in the article (see positive comments below) but be wary of statements like "brutally suppressed" and "lukewarm at best". I don't doubt you, but these kinds of phrases insert the view of the author. If a historian alleges these things, feel free to say "Historian John Smith described such-and-such as 'brutal'" and so forth... [after further reading] just like you did in a couple of paragraphs down.
 * The first two sections in the third era should probably be either a) expanded or b) consolidated into one section.
 * Minor note: Uti possidetis should be in italics.
 * You'll want to check if you've wikilinked some things more than once. As a general rule, link once in the lead, and then again in the article. For example, you have Community of Portuguese Language Countries linked twice. This script tells me you have quite a few. See WP:REPEATLINK.
 * As per WP:SEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

Each of these is explained above, but I thought I'd single out those I felt most important:
 * Main priorities
 * There are many passive sentences in the article. Sometimes it doesn't make a difference. Many times it would make the sentence more clear if the actor was included. Doing this will not just tell us who performed an action; it will also make many of these sentences clearer and more direct.
 * There are many complex sentences, which often include awkward syntax. Read the article out loud (yes, even to yourself!) to discover these. Split them up into simpler sentences wherever possible.
 * There are many wikilinks to articles that aren't clear from the context (years, common phrases, etc.).

Sometimes these reviews feel like a beat-down, so I try to include some positive things about the article.
 * Positive notes
 * With some work, I have no doubt this article can reach GA status. Keep comparing it with Good article criteria as you keep editing it and you'll start to feel a little better about your efforts.
 * As I mentioned above, there are remarkably few NPOV issues. I know that many of these subjects are probably controversial, but you've managed to stay with the "just the facts" style that an encyclopedia should have.
 * You have a lot to cover here, and you've managed to clip along at a nice pace without getting bogged down into the details of every expedition.
 * There are no large gaps in coverage, and for the most part the chronology seems to flow from event to event.
 * I don't have time to check every reference (obviously) but it looks as though you have used a clear and consistent style throughout. There do not appear to be any major statements lacking sources.
 * For the most part, the media is relevant and useful for understanding the topic. The maps are especially illustrative.

If you need anything else, please let me know. Best of luck on whatever goals you might set. Runfellow (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)