Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:48, 16 May 2009 [1].

Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Minas Gerais was a ship that turned the world upside-down when Brazil ordered her. As such, there is a decent amount written on her at that time. However, later on in her life, her condition deteriorated and was not able to play an active role in anything. Hence the shorter paragraphs toward the end of her career. Thanks for all of your comments, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy there Ed, interesting read but " twelve 10 in (25 cm) guns in five twin turrets" - too many guns or would there have been a sixth turret? ϢereSpielChequers 11:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, good eye! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also "and its blockade of the mainland." I'm pretty sure that Britain was not blockading France or Italy in WW1 - you might want to review that bit. But I'm not sure whether the British policy of not carrying coffee was a general allied policy, or what happened with neutrals like Spain. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. I may have made a mistake in trying to summarize it too succinctly... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the source again, I've rewritten the beginning of the paragraph. This included the addition of "For one, Britain's import policy prohibited coffee, as the space on merchant ships could be used for more "essential items". In addition, coffee was placed on a blacklist, so every Brazilian shipment to any of the Central Powers was subject to search and seizure, and even shipments to neutrals was barred to ensure that no coffee would get through." Does this address your query? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'd be surprised if rubber wasn't also embargoed as my understanding was that even food was restricted. But if your sources don't cover that fair enough - its somewhat peripheral to this FA. ϢereSpielChequers 07:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised as well, but I don't want to go hunting for a detail like that. ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, Two more questions. The Cook or a Cook? I'd be surprised if a ship that size had only one. And if the 4.7" guns were reduced from 22 to 4 in 1921 what happened in the next ten years to result in them being increased from 12 to 14 a decade later? ϢereSpielChequers 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment "The war had only a small need for rubber" – really? As a key ingredient in everything from automobiles to uniforms to aircraft, I find this very hard to believe (a significant proportion of the Nazi research effort in WW2 went towards developing synthetic elastomers precisely because they were cut off from natural rubber supplies); if it really was the case, a statement this extraordinary definitely needs a reliable source. – iridescent 14:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was brought up in the MILHIST A-class review. Remember that this was the First World War; automobiles and aircraft were in their infancy, and fabric rather than rubber was used to cover the wood of planes. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - This review will take more than one sitting, so I'll begin a list of comments here and give a verdict when I'm done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"Brazil entered the twentieth century as the third-largest South American naval power . . . Marshal Deodoro class and two cruisers." - Although size does not necessarily equal power, this part seems a little contradictory
  • "caused an influx of money into the Brazilian economy." - date?
  • and was supposed" - "and was intended"
  • Instead, all construction that had been done was torn down" - a bit inelegant. Perhaps "Instead, all exisiting construction was scrapped"
  • "After this was completed," - This what? Say it fully "Once the new plans were completed,"
  • "was formulated" - "drawn up" is the more usual term isn't it?
  • "Even though this meant that only two ships could be completed immediately" - why?
  • The above is good, but "plans went ahead." that follows it needs looking at, try "constuction went ahead.", or just remove the phrase "plans went ahead." and the "Although" that begins the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apologies for how long it is taking me to get to these; schoolwork is stealing a lot my free time, which was quite unexpected. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for this reason" - redundant
  • "Brazilian minister to Great Britain" - Is this his official title? Not "Ambassador to the United Kingdom"?
  • "Her first action" - "maiden voyage"?
  • "coupled with" - a bit picky, but coupled with means linking two things and you've linked at least three, try "combined with" instead.
  • "Many were sons of or former slaves who were forced to enter the navy; as they were barred from leaving the service before they served 15 years, "racial abuse and physical violence" was often seen in the navy." - Firstly, in what way were they "forced" into the Navy (and should Navy be capitalised or not?), secondly you repeat "navy" too much and do not provide a causal link between the long service and the abuse - how are they related?
  • (@ first comment) - exact quote from source: "Most sailors were ex-slaves, or the sons of slaves, who entered the navy against their will." ...so I have no idea. :/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its still not fully clear how the long service automatically led to the physical abuse.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began earlier in 1910" - confusing tenses, try "began early in 1910"
  • "When the punishment was administered, the punishment did not cease" - repetition of punishment
  • "so they sped up their timetable and rebelled on 21 and 22 November." - inelegant, "who increased their preparations and rebelled earlier than anticipated, on 21 and 22 November.
  • Better? 'Although they were not ready and could not revolt at a moment's notice, the incident infuriated the mutineers, so they quickened their preparations and rebelled earlier than originally planned on 21 and 22 November." —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, but a minor suggestion: "Although they were not ready and could not revolt immediately the incident infuriated the mutineers, who quickened their preparations and rebelled earlier than originally planned, on 21 and 22 November."--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take another look? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and keeping British engineers," - keeping them hostage?
  • "A major issue" - I'd suggest problem rather than issue, and state explicitly who is was a problem for.
  • "The government did give them" - use "issue" rather than "give them".
  • "that it was neutral and maintained this stance for most of the First World War, but it had crushing effects on Brazil's economy" - these don't seem to be cause and effect, which is how they are presented here. Try "that it was neutral, and maintained this stance for most of the First World War, which had crushing effects on Brazil's economy" instead.
  • "coffee were blacklisted" - "was blacklisted" and explain a bit more what this was
  • "Despite this, Brazil was pro-Allied for all of this time" - "Despite these restrictions, neutral Brazil was pro-Allied"
  • Good changes, but I've tinkered slightly with the sentence in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this exposed" - no need for "However"
  • "When coupled with Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, Brazilian ships were soon lost, which drove the country closer to declaring war on the Central Powers" Inelegant, is there a better way to phrase this?
  • Suggestion - "Due to Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, Brazilian ships were soon sunk, driving the country closer to declaring war on the Central Powers"
  • "when First Lieutenant Hercolino Cascardo and seven second lieutenants, along with others, commandeered the ship. " - Fragment
  • "Almost every ship in the Brazilian Navy was old and mostly obsolete by this time. The old mainstays" - repetition of "old", would also consider revising the "mostly obsolete" comment (perhaps "most were obsolete").
  • "For this reason, both Minas Gerais and São Paulo were used in the role of a "floating batteries". Although Minas Gerais had been further refitted during 1939–1943, she was still too old and in too poor a condition to play an active role in this war, so Minas Gerais defended the port of Salvador in northeastern Brazil for the entire war." - Slightly confused sentance structure here, the first part should come after the second part.

Thats all I saw, mostly prose issues. When they are sorted out let me know and I'll take another look.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much! Hope you found the article interesting. :-) I left some replies interspersed above, and the others I have addressed. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: The article on the Sao Paulo mentions participation by both ships on the government side in the Tenente Revolt, but this information is missing from this article, please incorporate it. (As an aside, I recommend working some of the suggestions above on the Background section into that article as well) Otherwise a very interesting and well researched article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studying is consuming a lot of time I htought I had. I will address your concerns as soon as I can... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At long last, I believe that I have addressed all of your remaining concerns, Jackyd. Thank you very much for the thorough review! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, although there are still two minor things to go: the "minister to Great Britain" doesn't sound like the correct title to me, and I'm still not certain about the causal link between long service and physical violence in the 1910 revolt. Once these are dealt with I will happily support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(@ minister) - I used the wording from the New York Times because I wasn't certain that meant ambassador. Other articles have referred to a "minister", so...I dunno.
(@ causal) - take another look, I think that I have addressed this. Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still have a problem with the following sentence: "They were barred from leaving the service before they served 15 years; this policy led officers to target black crewmen with "racial abuse and physical violence" - how does this necessarily follow? Since its from a source I'll leave the minister/Ambassador thing for now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I flipped the sentence to read thusly: "It was common for officers to target black crewmen with "racial abuse and physical violence", and they could not escape it as they were barred from leaving the service before they served 15 years." —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, got busy and somehow overlooked this. An excellent article on an interesting and obscure subject. Your changes have greatly improved the prose and I am now happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This ship is officially known in Brazil as the Minas Geraes, and I've never seen it spelled the modern way (Gerais) in any local sources. Has this been brought up or discussed before? I'd also be happy to help with any Portuguese-language sources, although it doesn't seem you need any :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that's why the NYT spelled it that way. The reason why I used the "i" is that all of the books in the bibliography (Conway's, Schenia, Whitley etc.) use "Gerais" (as opposed to Bennighoff and the NYT articles). After looking at the Brazilian Navy's website (specifically this page), I'm thinking that the article should be moved now; what does everyone else think? (And if it is moved, can somebody do an AWB run and replace "Minas Gerais" with "Minas Geraes"? (if possible—don't change the city's name!)) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, actually, the NYT would have spelled it that way because it was the correct spelling (until 1943, if memory serves). The article should certainly be moved IMHO (and it's a state, not a city ;)
      • I also echo Jackyd's concern—the article should certainly mention Minas Geraes' role in the Copacabana fort revolt (even though she never actually fired on the fort, only São Paulo did). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll move it now, and a state is what I meant. :)
        • I know that Minas Geraes didn't fire at the fort, but the only source I had saying that was a Brazilian Navy webpage I read through Google Translate awhile back that is now gone? I'll go hunting for a different site.
          • I've added a brief note. BTW, please remember to provide access dates for all online sources :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            Ack, will do. Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, random question, seeing as you seem to know about Brazilian history. In this part of a sentence ("... along with a discovery of gold (bringing "the hope of great wealth" to the country), caused an influx of money into the Brazilian economy."), I took the info from Conway's, but now that I am going through other sources, the only gold rush I've seen is the big one that occurred in the late 18th century. Would you happen to know any more? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: In Early career: "September 1910 found Minas Geraes visiting France, where officers of the ship quarreled with members of the Maritime Prefect." The reference doesn't support this, at all—the article claims the officers of São Paulo, not Minas Geraes, called on the Maritime Prefect; and they did not quarrel, they were turned away and "left warmly indignant". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Sigh* the small mistakes one makes. I used "quarreled" becuase it was described as a "disagreeable incident [that] took place at Cherbourg this week between officers of the Brazilian battleship Sao Paulo and the Maritime Prefect", but I'll move it over and change it. Thanks (again) for all of your help! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments: I've gone through and done a copyedit and I am close to supporting, but would like to see a few items addressed:
  • (Full disclosure: I reviewed and promoted this article for Good Article status in February 2009.)
    • There's one weasel-word phrase (marked with {{who}}) that need to be attributed or reworded.
    • I think the article is supposed to be in Commonwealth/International English and have changed a few spellings to support that. If that is the case, I hope that a 'native speaker' of Commonwealth English can check it to get all of the armors, harbors, authorizes, defenses, etc. spelled properly. If my assumption is wrong, please let me know and I will restore the American spellings that I changed.
      • I wrote it in American spelling because that's the spelling I know, but I'm not opposed to that changing. The reason that there were a few "defence"s still about was because I believed that they were official titles (I.e. Minister of Defence), and
    • There are several places where references (as opposed to notes) are in the middle of sentences, rather than in the more typical post-punctuation placement. It's disrupting in a sentence like Between June 1931[34] and 1935, Minas Geraes was totally reconstructed[39] and modernized at the Rio de Janeiro Naval Yard. to have the mid-sentence interruptions.
      • Well, I know that it is disruptive, but the different sources cover the different parts of the sentences. Should I just move them all to the end? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to see citations for these sentences or phrases:
      • The phrase leather whips tipped with metal balls is quoted without an in-text attribution or a citation immediately after.
      • Even though the First World War did not touch Brazilian soil, it had crushing effects on Brazil's economy.
      • Almost every ship in the Brazilian Navy was old and most were obsolete by this time.
    • I'm not clear to which ship this phrase referring: Initially prevented by a "dense fog" from picking up the body… — Bellhalla (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review Bellhalla. Sorry to hear about your cat. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Please change source links from JPGs to HTMLs per WP:IUP. It is best to link the HTML page so that any information about the image can be seen. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am working on. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be done. Also, before I get too carried away with myself, this image is allowed becasue it was on the navy's site, right? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks that way to me, yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't want to upload ten photos that were not taken by the Navy of Brazil just to see them deleted. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia I've just started a copyedit; a few issues:

  1. I am confused whether this is intended to be British English or AmEng ('Second World War" but also "modernized", "modernization", etc).
    I must confess to helping propagate the confusion. My understanding (now) is that it was intended to be American English, but the use of Conway's (which uses Commonwealth English) for spellings like programme and defence confused the issue; and my copyedit compounded it. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and my non-explanation didn't help much either. I think that American English, because that's what we know, would be best in the absence of a good AE->BE copyeditor. However, I think that "Minister of Defence" should stay with "defence" as it is an official title. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think—but am no expert on Brazilian political/military offices—that the official title would probably be in Portuguese and not in, say, English… — Bellhalla (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The same thought occured to me while I was off eating dinner and talking about the article with my mom. *Ed trundles off to correct his stupidity...* —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the "armour"s and "defence"s to AE; if someone feels that the article should be in BE, feel free to revert. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm... if the article contains any instance of "Minister of Defense" or "Ministry of Defense", it shouldn't. There was no Ministry of Defense in Brazil before 1999 :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to start reading the article before I comment here. I think that was in there somewhere, but evidently not anymore. Or I'm confusing this article with Design 1047 battlecruiser :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the infobox, why do some, but not all, of the armor values have inch to mm conversions?
    Good question. I'll add them now. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You still seem flummoxed by whether or not to hyphenate ship class names. To clarify, without italics: "Deodoro class" is one adjective (Deodoro) modifying one noun (class), and does not need a hyphen. However, "Deodoro-class battleship" requires a hyphen to join the two adjectives (Deodoro and class) modifying the noun battleship. Make sense?
    Haha. I've got it now :))) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More as I continue editing. Maralia (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I wanted to note that I helped Ed find some references and did some minor copyedit reviews a while back. I did not perform any content contribs or anything like that. I do not see anything on the recent check through the page that causes me concern. I am confident that any of Maralia's future concerns will be met. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, 1a. This really isn't bad, and it's damned interesting, but it needs a good run-through for cohesiveness and polish. Some example issues from the first few sections:
    • Are we writing in British English or American? I see "programme", but "armor". Or am I daft?
    • Parenthetical phrases are inconsistently punctuated: "In 1924," but "and by 1900 the only relatively new ships"
    • "Some of the proceeds from this economic growth was" Some were, I think.
    • "Instead, all construction that had been done was torn down" This isn't terrible attractive. Would losing "that had been done" change the meaning? It seems clear that one couldn't tear down construction that hadn't been done.
    • "materials that had already been made" Seems off-kilter; normally you make things out of materials, not make the materials.
    • "After this was completed ..." Avoid the ambiguous "this" in reference to a previous thing or concept. Always restate/paraphrase. This construction is mind-boggling to ESL readers.
These are a start. Not miles off, but not ready either. --Laser brain (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve got the BE v. AE, and I've fixed the other things you have mentioned. I will be trying to find a copyeditor. Thanks for the review! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criteria 1a and 2a. EDIT: Struck one, will look again at other later. Steve T • C At first glance, I thought the prose needed only a light brush, so resolved to copyedit the lead to provide examples of the sort of tweaks that are required. Unfortunately, upon editing the section, I became bogged down in problems that perhaps only a more in-depth copyedit will resolve in the rest of the article. Each of these paragraphs needed surgery to repair things such as dangling modifiers, an Easter egg link, ungainly repetition, and redundant statements. These edits are broadly representative of what seems to be required throughout the article. It's not terrible—the content is good and largely well-presented—but it might do the article some good to have a third-party copyeditor take a look at it, as quite often the writer of an article is too familiar with the text to spot the areas that need attention. I also strongly recommend a read through of these redundancy exercises; removing unnecessary words and phrases is 90% of the copyediting work. The 2a opposition comes from the fact that the lead does not seem to adequately summarise the rest of the article. Read through for major facts that might be appropriate for inclusion. In particular, the second and third paragraphs tease the reader by hinting at—but not providing full resolution to—the "Revolt of the Whip" and São Paulo mutinies. Each ends with the reader in limbo. Otherwise, this is a very interesting article; as Laser brain says, it's not a mile off, and I feel sure that it can meet the FA standard if these issues are resolved (or successfully rebutted!). All the best, Steve T • C 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is going to sound a little weird, but could you take a look through another one of the sections to ensure the problems you mentioned are in the entire article? I'm half-assuming that they are, but I want to be sure. The lead was one of the things I had not worked on in awhile; actually, the version of 9 April was remarkably similar to just before your helpful c/e. Most of it was written prior to Design 1047 battlecruiser's FAC, where Tony linked me to those same exercises; they are rather helpful, aren't they? :) In addition, the lead's early writing is probably the reason for it not covering everything.
    • I'll try to start going over it myself right now, but I have a heavy work schedule coming up over tonight and the next couple days. I'll also attempt to find a copyeditor. Thanks for all of your help! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The curse of the lead! I have to admit I've unfairly judged entire articles many times by their leads. For some reason, the lead is often the weakest part of any given article. At any rate, ping me if you can't find anyone to look at it, because I'd really like to see this pass and I might be able to run through it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's because it is hard to condense everything you originally wrote into three (or in this case, four) paragraphs. ;) I will try EyeSerene (talk · contribs), as Maralia (talk · contribs) has copyedited two of my articles in the recent past and something like four overall (I kinda feel bad...); if ES cannot, I will come back here begging for your help. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi! I'll echo Laser brain's "curse of the lead" comment; the majority of my FAC reviews comment on each section, but after falling behind my mental FAC review quota I chose to shortcut the process somewhat. I did read the whole article, and felt the specific comments I made on the lead were generally representative, but I agree that my making comment on the other sections would have been helpful. I'll try to give some specific pointers tomorrow. One last thing: are we happy with the DMY date format? The usual US format—which the article uses for spelling etc.—is MDY (though it bothers me not at all). All the best, Steve T • C 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for all of the help, both of you. :-) I believe that DMY is the accepted format for military-related articles; it was discussed in another one of my FACs, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Connecticut (BB-18), although I think that pertained to the U.S. military only. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just taking a look at this now, and something that strikes me as odd in the Background section is the statement, "Some of the proceeds from this economic growth were used to finance a 1904 building program... Approved by the Brazilian Congress in 1905..." The discrepancy feels odd; I assume 1904 was when the program was first conceived, yet it wasn't approved until 1905? If so, and unless the official name for it is "the 1904 building program" or somesuch, this could require some clarification in the notes. Steve T • C 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Conway's 1906–1921 on p. 403 says "The Brazilian Navy launched a massive acquisition programme to create a modern fleet. Titled the Building Programme of 1904, it was refined for a few years before orders were placed for warships. The major controversy was over the size of the battleship to be purchased [pre-dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts]." What do you think I should add in a note? Note that I did not include this "title" of the program in the article because I think that was a Portuguese -> British English translation (why would the real name of a program be in a non-native language?). Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cool, just double checking the dates were right is all. Looking again, a note probably isn't necessary. I had a chance make a few edits to that section earlier today; you were right, it did need less work than the lead, and was more along the lines of the "light brush" I mentioned before. If you're happy with the changes (and by all means call me on any you disagree with), I'd be happy to go through the other sections over the next day or two. Steve T • C 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Double checking is a good thing. :) The edits I have been able to check the limited time I have had have looked good; I'll check all of them later tonight. Thank you very much! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (out) - no problems. [3] You unreffed a para and had two semi-colons in a sentence, but that was easy to fix; thanks so much for the copyedit! FYI, this was fine; I don't know where "after" came from... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brazilian_battleship_Minas_Geraes/archive1&oldid=1089085510"