Pedro II of Brazil

The editors need a fresh pair of eyes to go over what we've done thus far, with an eye that this article will be nominated as a FA candidate. A good deal of the material originally in the article has been spun off into sub-articles, which are only partially completed. Right now, we are interested in getting the main article into good shape. • Astynax ^talk 09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request of User:Lecen, I have briefly looked over the article for any possible improvements:

The introductory section has a lot of unsourced claims, such as "A few decades after his death his reputation was restored and his remains returned to Brazil as a national hero. He is still regarded as one to the present day. Historians regard the Emperor in an extremely positive light, and he is usually ranked as the greatest Brazilian." Adding some citations would certainly help verification, especially when making potentially arguable claims about historians and Brazilians alike.
I recommend bolding "Dom Pedro II, Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil" and removing the italics.
There is a reference error in the last paragraph of the section "Patron of arts and sciences".
The rest of the article looks good, and is it well-cited. I would recommend it for FA status. Ruby2010 (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Some of the citations were in the body of the article and may have been moved to the sub-articles. I can check that later. I've bolded the Imperial title and fixed the extraneous reference tag. • Astynax ^talk 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby, thank you for taking your time to look at it. The sources to the sentence above, where it says that Pedro II's reputation was restored and his remains were returned to Brazil, and etc, etc, can be seen in the section Pedro II of Brazil#Legacy. The other remakrs you made Astynax already corrected it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, Pericles here. User:Lecen has invited me to review this article, so here I am! I'll jot notes and suggestions below; anyone can respond. Let me know what you think!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full name of Pedro II, i.e. Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga, should be in bold font, not in italics. For an example of this, see my featured article on Augustus, who has many name variants and titles in bold.
"Living in the midst of court intrigues and political disputes were seminal influences which later showed in his character." - This is a wonderful sentence, and is made perfectly clear once you read about his upbringing in the main body, but the language seems a bit too flowery for an encyclopedic entry; consider rewording it.
"A frustrating marriage, coupled with a highly demanding office, contributed to his bitterness." - Hmm. I think it would be best if it was made clear why his bitterness is relevant here in the lead of the article. The paragraph sort of ends on a cliffhanger without further explanation; this sort of thing should be avoided in the lead section if you want to see smooth-sailing in the FAC process.
"From an Empire on the verge of disintegration, in a long reign Pedro II turned Portuguese-speaking Brazil into an emerging power in the international arena." - I believe we can simplify the language even more; try this: "Ruling an empire on the verge of disintegration, Pedro II turned Portuguese-speaking Brazil into an emerging power in the international arena."
I was almost going to suggest that someone remove "Portuguese-speaking" from the latter sentence, but it is made relevant in the following sentence when comparing Brazil to the Spanish-speaking world of Latin America. Speaking of which, I hope there are clear, specific examples in the article of how certain neighboring Hispanic countries lacked "political stability, zealously-guarded freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth and...a functional, representative parliamentary monarchy."
"His last two years of life were spent in exile in Europe, living as he had his entire life, alone and modestly." - I wouldn't doubt the "alone" part, but what about him living modestly? By what standard? By the standard of 19th-century royal families? Or by the standard of an everyday average João in the marketplace? This should certainly be made clear; judging by his lavish regalia, he was anything but dirt-poor.
I checked the "Legacy" section before coming to this review page, so I did not see a problem with the lead's statement about historians—which User:Ruby2010 has mentioned above. However, the lead section does not make one very important thing clear: how did Pedro II maintain political and economic stability? The lead hints that, by his absence, the country "went to hell in a hand basket" (so the saying goes), and everybody was kicking themselves in the pants for being so foolish as to oust him. I'm sure the article explores this in great detail, but the lead leaves one wondering how much influence Pedro II had in stemming the "anarchy" which immediately followed his reign.

Although I'm done reviewing the introduction, I'll have to continue the review a bit later, perhaps over the weekend. Thanks for contacting me! I'm more than happy to help out others with the often grueling FAC process. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. I will try and work on the clarifications you requested later today. • Astynax ^talk 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming, Pericles!

1) Pedro II's name in bold font: Astynax can fix that.

2) Sentence too "flowery": Astynax can also fix that (he is the one who helps me on improving the spelling)

3) About bitterness representing a cliffhanger: if you take a look at the above sentence, it says that "Pedro II grew into a man having a strong sense of duty and devotion toward his country and his people, but also one who increasingly resented his role as monarch" which is followed by "A frustrating marriage, coupled with a highly demanding office, contributed to his bitterness". The bitterness is related to his distate of being a monarch. You will understand it better once you read the article itself. Do you believe it should be re-worded?

4) To simplify the sentence on Brazil becoming an emerging power: Astynax may fix it easily.

5) Portuguese Brazil and Hispanic America: Astynax can fix that.

6) Years in exile: he was poor indeed, even more when compared to other exiled royals. All his properties and belongings in Brazil were sold by the Republican government. Pedro II also refused a financial "compensation" from the Republican government that would allow him to live very well and with confort in exile. His wife died a few days after arriving in Europe, and he already had lost two sons and one daughter. His remaining daughter wnt to live in another city and on the expenses of her father-in-law. Pedro II, on the other hand, since he had no money, he lived with what a dew monarchists gave to him. According to the Viscount of Ouro Preto (the last Brazilian prime minister) who visited him on exile, Pedro II lived in a small second rate hotel room where there was only a blanket, a chair, a bed and some books. He had no one else to help him, no servants or someone like that. He was certainly not starving or became a beggar, but I don't know if that made him a poor person or something else. All that I wrote I was planing to put in the article Pedro II of Brazil exile and death. What is written in the main article is only a simple summary. Do you believe we should be more detailed? Wouldn't that run away from the Featured article's standards?

7) Pedro II's role on Brazilian politics: That is explained in the article itself and is even more detailed in Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. During Pedro II minority, the country become in all but the name a republic. The Head of State was an elected-regent. And as an elected office-holder, that meant that the regent was a member of one of the political parties. The country fell in anarchy since all political parties were fighting to prevent the others from maintaining the power. After 9 years of regency, the country was in ruins. The politicians and the people lookd over Pedro II, then only a teenager as the simbol on unity and peace. He was aboce political parties. He was above "mundane" disputes. That was in 1840. In 1889, the politicians who were in power, did not live under the regency. All they met was a steady and prosperous country. They did not live under the civil wars, or economic collapse. To them, with or without a monarch, the country could go on. Most of them did not think that Pedro II was important anymore in his role as symbol of unity and above political passion. Since they could not accept his daughter and heir as Empress, as they would never allow a woman to rule a nation, even more in a time when women could not even vote, when the monarchy was overthrown by a small group of republicans, they accepted the news easily. However (and that is only briefly mentioned in the text, since this belong to history of Brazil as a republic), the country fell once again, as during the regency, in anarchy and economic depression.

Why? First, because instead of a president, Brazilians got a dictator. That led to rebellions against the dictator's rule. Second, the monarchists did not accept the end of the monarchy so easily. They also rebelled. Third, no foreign business men or companies wanted to invest money in a country like Brazil, who had become a chaotic nation. Without money, the economy began entering in collapse. When that happened, in the 1890s, the government did not pay the interest of the nation's foreignt debt. That worsened everything more and more. Inflaction was also rising. By 1900, even the most staunch republicans began lookg to Pedro II's reign a time when everything "went well". Since no one, not even the most staunch monarchists, wanted Isabel as an Empress and there was no one else that could be a viable pretender, Brazilians simply started working to make the republid viable by itself. Even monarchists joined it, like Joaquim Nabuco and José Paranhos, Baron of Rio Branco. They looked at Pedro II's reign as a model of politics, of statesmen, etc... It took quite some time (more than 100 years) to bring Brazil once again at place of prominence in the international stage, to make the country once again a respected and rising power, as it is believed to become more and more (see: Potential superpowers#Brazil).

As you can see, all that that I wrote above does not belong into the article. What would you suggest? --Lecen (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Lecen and Astynax; sorry for the belated reply and enormous delay, but if you like, I can continue reviewing the article. Thank you Lecen for clearing those issues up; I don't think the introduction needs any further restructuring or rewording. My concerns with it have been addressed sufficiently.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the interest and patience to do that, we would be very happy and grateful! --Lecen (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]