Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1937 Brazilian coup d'état/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2021 [1].

1937 Brazilian coup d'état edit

Nominator(s): FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1937 coup which created a dictatorship in Brazil. I have created and worked on it for the past few months and believe it satisfies the featured article criteria.

It was recently copyedited by Twofingered Typist (talk · contribs) and received its GA review from Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) in September.FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is tagged as lacking author info, and when was this first published? What is its status in the US? Ditto File:São_Paulo_flag_burned_in_1937.jpeg
I am unsure. I uploaded both as not knowing what license it should be under, and both were reviewed by the same two users as public domain.
Images uploaded locally should be public domain in the US (or claimed as fair use), so these will both need tagging for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both have been tagged for fair use in the US, public domain in Brazil, and the resolution for each has been reduced.
These will need a stronger FUR, and suggest using the generic fair-use tag rather than unique historic image.
Tags have been replaced. What do you mean by "stronger"?
Non-free content needs a fair-use rationale that justifies why each of the non-free criteria are met and why a non-free image is necessary for illustrating the article. At the moment the rationales presented do not adequately accomplish this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added rationales for why File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is necessary.
  • File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg: when was this first published? Ditto File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg
Unsure, but the permissions for these two images should not come into question because they were uploaded from the National Archive. Also, since they take place in two historical events, File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg is in October 1930 and File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg is in November 1935.
We do still need to ensure the tagging is correct, particularly with regards to US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are, though, I believe. Both photos have tags of the National Archive. FredModulars (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, why do you believe the tagging is correct if the publication date is unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no question about it if it was uploaded from the National Archive. See the first licensing and summary for each image.
Is there a link to this work on the Archive website? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All National Archive photos uploaded have identification in their summaries, so a link is not required.
If we're not able to verify from the Archive site what licensing information is provided there, then yes, there is a question. It would be unusual for a non-US site to identify the status of a non-US work in the US. This applies also to several other images throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both images were uploaded by the National Archive. They have identification in their summaries, licensing, and are said to be of the "Brazilian National Archives GLAMWiki Initiative". For US copyright purposes, the licensing on Commons is fulfilled by the file. It was first published in Brazil and not published in the U.S. within 30 days. Being that the Correio da Manhã (newspaper) shut down in 1974, it was first published before 1 March 1989. Fundo Correio da Manhã is also a part of the National Archives. Finally, it is a "cinematographic, phonographic, photographic and applied arts works completed before 20 June 1938" and/or a photographic work "not considered to be 'artistic creations' produced before 20 June 1998" from my understanding of the copyright law. Looking at the dates of the files (October 1930 and 25 November 1935, respectively), both are before 1938 and 1998. Therefore, both files are public domain in the US.
We know the images were created before 1938/1998, but you've indicated above you're not sure when they were published. It's very possible for archival materials to have never been published. This applies to other archival images as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have indicated the publication was before 1989. Since they are part of the Fundo Correio da Manhã, they were published in that newspaper, and before 1989 since the paper shut down in 1974. See above.
Does the Archive specify that everything in that collection was published, as opposed to just part of that collection? The latter is more typical. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were published. If you want more proof, which I believe is unnecessary since the archive is of the newspaper's photos, after p. 130 in "Vargas of Brazil: A Political Biography" by John W.F. Dulles, File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg appears, albeit in a worse condition. It is sourced from the Correio da Manhã, the newspaper itself. For the other image, see here. Page five of the newspaper, middle of the three bottom images.
  • File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg: is there evidence to support that the uploader was the copyright holder and could therefore release the image under the given license? Ditto File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, File:Francisco_Campos.jpg
The first's permission in the table is "Fotografia com mais de 70 anos, domínio público." Being more than seventy years old, it is in the public domain (as should be most of these photos from my understanding of the law). There is no evidence for File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, or File:Francisco_Campos.jpg.
Being old does not automatically make something public domain; even if this is in the public domain due to age, the current tagging is incorrect and will need to be corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png has little information and has been replaced by Plínio Salgado, 1959.tif.
File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg was uploaded from Facebook and there is little more information. It has been replaced by File:Pintura Oficial de Armando de Sales.jpg.
What's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has just added a license that seems right: The same as File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg.
The source link is dead - is there an alternative available to confirm those publication details? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.saopaulo.sp.gov.br/conhecasp/historia/galeria-governadores/. This should suffice.
File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg has been replaced by File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg.
When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1930.
Do you have a citation for this publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got confused with the date it was made and the publication date. I have removed the image entirely.
File:Francisco_Campos.jpg has been replaced by File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg, a file I have uploaded from the Ministry of Justice.
Why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found on a government website. Campos died in 1969, so it was commissioned before 1983. With that, it satisfies all the requirements of the licensing.
That's for the Brazilian licensing - my question is with regards to the US licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing, sorry.
Okay, but again, the information you've listed is with regards to the Brazilian licensing, so why specifically do you believe it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the license with one from Wikimedia, the same one for File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg. It "was first published in Brazil (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)" and "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities" and it is a photographic work not considered to be an artistic creation. It was made before 20 June 1998 since Campos died in 1968. Removed the image entirely; can't find when it was first published.
  • File:José_Américo_de_Almeida_no_Catete._(cropped).tif: why is this believed to be a government work? Ditto File:Deputado_José_Antônio_Flores_da_Cunha.tif, File:EstadoNovoaddress.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first two were uploaded to Wikipedia by the National Archive of the Ministry of Justice. With that, they are in the public domain. The third is one that I was not sure of when I uploaded it, so it was put to discussion for deletion and it was marked as being government work.
It appears that the first two were uploaded by individual users, one of whom has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns; what leads you to believe either is affiliated with the National Archive? For the third, do you have a link to the deletion discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the first two, both are sourced from the National Archive. Their permissions are attributed to the National Archive. I believe the user you are talking about is Avrelianvs Magnvs. The image they uploaded is extracted from another image (that they did not upload) which, again, is affiliated with the National Archive. Here is a link to the third image's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 25. It is the third image being discussed. FredModulars (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion does not determine that this is a government work; the file was deleted because it existed on Commons, but it does not seem that the underlying issue was addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reached out to the user who closed the discussion and uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons to inquire on why they concluded it was a government photo. I am awaiting a reply.
@Nikkimaria: The user was confused with the copyright and the photo has been deleted from Commons. In the article, it has been replaced with File:EstadoNovoRadioAddress1937.jpeg, awaiting a size reduction. FredModulars (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should use the generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • File:Plano_Cohen_-_Correio_da_Manha.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done. For the license, it meets the first two formalities as well as "an anonymous work or a work deemed to be anonymous, or a work by a collective person whose authors were not individually identified, published or disclosed before 20 June 1938."

I apologize for my delay. I will address the issues above soon. FredModulars (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have responded to the image review.
@Nikkimaria: I believe your concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the new images have fixed px size and are missing alt text
Done; I didn't know fixed px was an issue. Added alt text.
  • Did Correio da Manhã include a copyright notice?
If you mean in the newspaper itself, no. I can't find copyright notice on their photos.
  • File:José_Américo_de_Almeida_no_Catete._(cropped).tif: what is the status of this work in the US?
Same situation; see below for Flores da Cunha photo. Here is the photo per the National Archive. Produced by the Agência Nacional, it is under their license.
The current tags on the image are contradictory - either it's a government work or it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PD in Brazil, CC for United States as below
Is this a government work, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a government work.
  • File:Deputado_José_Antônio_Flores_da_Cunha.tif: what does the Archive state about the provenance of this work? What is its status in the US?
I was able to find it here as part of the web archive. Information can be found here. It was produced the Agência Nacional, proof here (this link may not work since it is on the archive's SIAN website and a login is required) and already mentioned on its page. Added the agency's license. I don't believe a link is necessary since the accession number and collection are provided.
As above - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PD in Brazil since it is in possession by the National Archive, but CC for United States (and also Brazil, I would suppose) since it was produced by Agencia Nacional.
  • File:Discurso_do_presidente_da_República_Getúlio_Vargas_na_instalação_do_Estado_Novo_no_Palácio_Guanabara..wav: what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added US licensing. I am a bit unsure on this one, but it should meet first two requirements and the last of the four.
When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a radio broadcast from 10 November 1937. That is stated in its documentation and in the first minute or so of the broadcast itself. Assuming by "published" you mean when it was disclosed to the public or when it was broadcast through an agency, that should be the date.

@Nikkimaria: I have gotten around to the new comments. FredModulars (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I hope this isn't excessive pinging, so my apologies if it is, but your question has been answered. FredModulars (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. The bit I'm still unsure about is the overlapping licensing (CC and PD). Our article on Agência Brasil indicates it was founded in 1990 - is that correct? Do these images appear on the AB site? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agencia Brasil is a successor to the Agencia Nacional, and, according to the pt article, was established by President Vargas by a decree in 1937. I couldn't find them on the AB site.
Okay. The CC tag specifies content on their site - do you have a reference supporting that it applies also to the predecessor works? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I thought the language of the tag would allow for anything produced by them, but I will try to look again for anything on their site and a reference saying it applies to older works.
Update: I have been unable to find anything on their site or a reference you requested. Without any suitable alternatives for Cunha and Almeida, I have removed both their images. All other portraits of people alone in the article have been removed, and the presidential candidates' images have deteriorated from replacements and now Américo lacks one, so I just decided to remove the other two.

Source review - pass edit

Locations
  • Fausto, Boris; Fausto, Sergio (2014) per WorldCat it looks like all editions were either published in São Paulo, Brazil (currently presented location) by the Universidade de São Paulo, or in New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press (current publisher). Currently used ISBN gives New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press. Whichever edition you used, standardize to that, and if it's São Paulo, Brazil by Universidade de São Paulo, you'll need to change the ISBN to whichever is used in the text.
Done.
  • Dulles, John W.F. (1967) what is the year of the edition you used? The ISBN provided links to a 2012 edition; if you used the 2012 edition change the date to 2012, and insert an orig-year of 1967. If you used a 1967 copy, change the ISBN to whatever is used in the text.
Done.
  • Pandolfi, Dulce Chaves (2004) add a |trans-title parameter of the English title.
Done.
  • Skidmore, Thomas E. (2010) add identifier; a common ISBN for the 2010 edition is 9780195374551, but check your edition.
Done.
  • Young, Jordan M. (1967) add an id from whichever you used; it will likely be an OCLC.
Done.
Notes (non-issues)
  • For Hudson, Rex A. I fixed the template used; Country study has its own template, and cite web isn't really appropriate.
  • Meade, Teresa A. (2010) Facts-on-file is not the greatest publisher but she has been published by university presses, so I won't object to inclusion.
  • @FredModulars: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: A new source has been added. I don't know if that would change the outcome of the source review.

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

  • Vargas had risen to power in 1930 with the backing of the military following a revolution which ended a decades-old oligarchy. Comma after military and it should be "that ended".
Done.
  • Under a new constitution, Vargas became the constitutional president of Brazil. Probably should link the constitution in this sentence.
Unfortunately, there is no article on the constitution on the en Wikipedia. I linked it to the section on it in the article History of the Constitution of Brazil.
  • With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. With few other options, Rio Grande do Sul's Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. Im not seeing the connection. Did the declaration of war grant Vargas additional powers that made him more of a threat to the governor? Something else?
Changed to "With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. After having his state's militia be incorporated into federal forces by a state of war commission in his state, Rio Grande do Sul Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. State governors of Bahia and Pernambuco were also attacked by commissions in their states." This should clarify that the state of war allowed the federal government to pursue more interventions in the states.
  • Francisco Campos [pt] was drafting a new constitution. Why? Was this to give Vargas more power? Something else? Link the new constitution as well.
Clarified. Linked to a section in the History of the Constitution of Brazil.
  • By November, the president held most of the power in the country and nothing stood in the way of the intricate plan from taking place Comma before the "and". The second part after the junction is a bit clunky.
Done. Changed "nothing stood in the way of" to "little stopped."
  • In the coup's aftermath, a semi-fascist, authoritarian state was propped up in Brazil based on European fascist countries. Comma after Brazil.
Done.
  • Foreign reaction was mostly negative. Wouldn't it be reactions and were?
I meant it as a general reaction to the coup, but that makes more sense.
  • The First Brazilian Republic ended with the Revolution of 1930 You should elaborate a bit more in this overview sentence (a generalization of why it ended).
The paragraph explains the causes for the revolution. I believe it would be unnecessary and repetitive.
  • By now, the military and figures such as military politician General Góis Monteiro [pt] supported Vargas. by now doesn't make much sense. I would say something like "At that time" or "At that point".
Done.
  • The aftermath was harsh. Historians Boris and Sergio Fausto note, "it opened the way for far-reaching repressive measures and for an escalation of authoritarianism". Could these two be merged together? It likely is a with/ing kinda deal.
Added a semicolon.
  • became a permanent organization lasting until 1945. Comma after organization.
Done.
  • ending with the arrest of several assemblymen, supporters of the pro-National Liberation Alliance, a leftist front; No "and" in this list?
It's not a list, and this may be confusing. The assemblymen were the supporters of the ANL. The ANL was a leftist front. I have reworded the sentence: "who were supporters..."
  • The 1934 constitution essentially existed only de jure. The states of emergency, police actions, and the anti-communist climate violated it. These could likely be combined.
Changed to "existed only de jure, as the states..."
  • arose in its aftermath You should clarify which aftermath since you mention the coup and the revolt in the same sentence.
Changed to "arose in the aftermath of the communist insurrection."
  • Vargas found support from all sides, and three constitutional amendments were passed by Congress to bolster Vargas's power --> "Vargas found support from all sides, with congress passing three constitutional amendments to bolster his power"
Done.
  • Luís Carlos Prestes assumed responsibility for the movement after he was caught in March 1936, sentenced to seventeen years in prison by the TSN Change the comma to a semicolon and add "he was".
Done.
  • Through late 1936 to early 1937 Through should be from since it is the starting time.
Done.
  • supported Armando de Sales Oliveira ; Extra space here.
Fixed.
  • Congress refused a request to prolong the state of war I assume a request to extend it even further?
Yes. Added "again."
  • The military joined in the effort making a plethora of accusations against Cunha Comma after effort.
Done.
  • Maciel Filho described the atmosphere in mid-September writing Comma after mid-September.
I believe this was written to convey the writing was of mid-September. Nevertheless, it makes no difference. Done.
This is all for now. I will do the rest of the article later. NoahTalk 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 1 November there was a parade of the Integralist militia Comma after November.
Done.
  • national plebiscite detailed in the new constitution was held Phrase from detailed through constitution should be offset by commas.
Done.
  • those in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo,[e] Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco's intervenors were replaced. This is a bit clunky.
Changed to "Most appointees had succeeded themselves. Intervenors in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco, however, were replaced."
  • Instead, he presented a new program of activity, with new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and implementing "a great steelworks" that could use local minerals and offer employment. verb tenses don't match throughout the sentence.
Changed to "Instead, he presented a new program of activity, including new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and the implementation of "a great steelworks" that was to provide local minerals and offer employment."
  • Civil rights were curtailed and individual liberties were nominal. The proposed Congress never met. Could these be combined?
Changed to a series.
  • Vargas's term was lengthened by six years, and he could now run for re-election --> "making him eligible to run for re-election" has a better flow.
The lengthening of his term does not imply he was allowed re-election. Reworded to ", and he was now eligible to run for re-election."
  • Political parties were outlawed on 2 December 1937. However, Vargas saw no reason to build support using a political party or an ideological program. Im not seeing a contrast?
This was supposed to contrast with the idea of the entire paragraph. The section implies Vargas had unlimited power and leaves the reader thinking he was totalitarian or fascist, which is only partially true (and completely false by the end of the Estado Novo) and contrasts with historians' view of him. Since these encompass two different ideas, I have separated them into two paragraphs.
  • During this new period, Vargas ruled as dictator; his term ended on 29 October 1945. Why did it end?
I originally wanted to exclude this because it is drifting a bit too far from the direct aftermath of the coup. Added a paragraph at the end of A new regime to summarize how he lost, regained, and again lost power. After Vargas dies the political scene slowly shifts away from him and his crew and his memory is slowly forgotten, so that is enough. Many things are details (e.g. "a political crisis") because explaining them would drift too far away from the idea of the article.
  • United States ambassador to Brazil Jefferson Caffery Ambassador should be capitalized in this case.
Done.
  • Sources are out of order in multiple locations.
Fixed.
  • Portuguese is a duplicate link in the lead.
Fixed.
  • Hora do Brasil is a duplicate link.
Fixed.
That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? NoahTalk 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Addressed all issues presented. Thanks for the review, I'll check out your candidate. FredModulars (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe everything has been addressed appropriately so I am now supporting. NoahTalk 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Resolved issues

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • You have quite a few "Further information" links at the top of the "Brazil in the early 1930s" subsection; I would suggest you cut the links that are already in that paragaph, which is most of them -- links like that are for the benefit of the reader who wants more information and has no opportunity to seek it via links in the text. I'd also suggest linking to the 1930 revolution from "armed revolution in October that year".
    I removed all but First Brazilian Republic and Brazilian Revolution of 1930. Though they are linked already, they are the most vital in my opinion. Linking to the 1930 revolution from "armed revolution in October that year" is unnecessary since it is introduced at the beginning of the paragraph and, therefore, already linked. If you think it would be better to conclude the paragraph with the revolution, I can change it around.
    No, it's fine as is; I missed that link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1929 economic crisis was undermining an oligarchy which had dominated Brazilian politics since the 1890s and concentrated power in the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais. The oligarchy collapsed when then-president of São Paulo Washington Luís violated the agreement by..." The oligarchy and the agreement are two separate things, but here they're treated as if they are the same -- or else the "agreement" has no referent. It's also not clear to me why we're mentioning the 1929 economic crisis -- we don't say in what way the economic issues undermined the oligarchy. I would either make it clearer how events of 1929 affected "coffee with milk", or remove the reference and start with the nomination of Prestes.
    Changed to "the oligarchy's agreement..." Also changed the second issue to "The 1929 economic crisis was undermining the power of..." A crisis of any sort would truncate the rule of any group, or at least diminish their influence. Details like "why" and "how" aren't necessary for the reader to understand this topic, that's what further info and links to main articles are for. Right now, the idea of the oligarchy breaking apart should be conveyed to them.
    That's better, and I take your point, but can we make it "had undermined", or perhaps just "undermined"? I don't think the continuous present adds anything. Also, reading it again, I think we might be able to simplify it a bit more -- you explain the agreement towards the end of the sentence, so can we cut the reference to it at the start, making it "The oligarchy collapsed when then-president from São Paulo Washington Luís nominated another person of his home state, Júlio Prestes, to succeed him instead of acting within the terms of the inter-state agreement and nominating a candidate from Minas Gerais"? Or "terms of the oligarchy's agreement"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to your first proposal (The oligarchy collapsed when then-president from São Paulo Washington Luís nominated another person of his home state, Júlio Prestes, to succeed him instead of acting within the terms of the inter-state agreement and nominating a candidate from Minas Gerais). Also changed to "undermined".
  • You describe Luís as "then-president of São Paulo" but he was president of Brazil at that time, surely?
    Originally, it was "and paulista" with a link to Paulista. After another user added an unreferenced note clarifying he was born in Rio, I wanted to clarify he was of São Paulo, i.e., his home state, without it remaining unreferenced. Changed to "from São Paulo."
    I don't think that's enough -- I had no idea reading this that he was president of Brazil. It was only when I went to the linked articles I realized I'd missed that, and your edit still doesn't tell the reader that directly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "when then-President Washington Luís, from São Paulo, nominated..."
    Struck, since I think that does make it unambiguous, but here's another phrasing you might consider that's even more direct: "collapsed when the President of Brazil, Washington Luís, who was from São Paulo, nominated". You don't really need "then-president" since you have "when" indicating this is of a particular time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed then-.
  • "At that time, the military and figures such as military politician General Góis Monteiro supported Vargas." I'm not clear why Monteiro is worth mentioning here. Is it the case that generally military figures supported Vargas but other political figures did not, so that Vargas's support in the political arena was restricted to ex-military figures such as Monteiro? (Or was Monteiro still on active service at this time?)
    Right now is a good time to introduce Monteiro, not only as an example of a military figure supporting Vargas, but also because he was a revolutionary leader and, something that is later mentioned, an architect of the 1937 coup. I can see the confusion, so I have just removed "military politician" entirely.
    I'll let this go if you feel strongly that this is the right way to introduce Monteiro, but I think it distracts rather than informs. You don't mention Monteiro for several more sections, and it's not clear why Monteiro is picked out -- and now that you've removed "military politician" and retained "General" it's not clear why he is separate from "the military". I don't know if this fits the sources, but could we do something like "At that time, the military supported Vargas, as did some [or many?] politicians with a connection to the military, such as General Góis Monteiro, later a significant figure in the 1937 coup?" Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In these early sections, there is the reoccurring dilemma of wanting to exclude information that is generally unimportant to the 1937 coup but important to this era as a whole. The result is that the information is poorly condensed. For context, though I am sure you have inquired into him already, Monteiro was an influential military figure and a leader of the 1930 revolution, which is why I wanted the reader to at least acknowledge he was active in this time period if they were to research further. Seeing how this is an issue, and how the reader will most likely forget about this man when they get to "Preparation", I have just introduced him there and slightly reworded this sentence.
    I think that's better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "paulistas" refer to? Just a link might be enough.
    Linked.
  • "Until then, Vargas was the provisional president": here "then" refers to the Constitutionalist Revolution in the previous sentence, but that's not what you mean. I think it would be better to mention his title at the point he assumes it, which is presumably in 1930. Can we make the first sentence of that paragraph "...and assumed all policy-making power, taking the title of provisional president" or "... as provisional president"? Then just cut the 1933 sentence to start "Vargas permitted elections in May 1933 to a National Constituent Assembly..."
    That sounds better. Changed to "In the revolution's aftermath, Vargas became provisional president," and cut the 1933 sentence to your suggestion. I was only concerned that the reader may think elections were a result of the 1932 revolution, but I don't think that should be an issue.
  • "From 23 November to 27 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte." This isn't quite right, is it? Unless I've misread the linked articles, the attempted coup begins on 23 November in Rio Grande do Norte, but giving a range of five days as you do must refer to Recife and Rio de Janeiro as well; the way you have it, those events "followed" those in Natal but the reader can't see that the dates you give refer to them.
    The events in Natal, Recife, and Rio were interconnected. They were all the same revolt, just in different locations and varying in size. It is worded this way because the revolts began in Natal. The communist insurrection wasn't limited to only Natal, which is why the sentence is worded as "began in Rio Grande do Norte."
    I see that, but I think this doesn't say what you want it to. How about: "On 23 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte, and over the next four days the movement spread to Recife and Rio de Janeiro. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until it was defeated. The army's response in Rio de Janeiro was especially bloody..."? That makes it clear that the 23 November date applies only to Rio Grande do Norte, but that the movement is the same coup attempt in all three places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded it a bit, but retained the general idea. "From 23 November to 27 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until it was defeated. The movement proceeded in Recife and Rio de Janeiro, where the encounters between troops were especially bloody and several people died."
    I wouldn't oppose over this since it's a minor issue of wording, but I'm going to leave the point unstruck since I think the meaning of the range of dates could be clearer to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe it should be "over the next four days" or something else?
    What bothers me about the current wording is that something did begin on 23 to 27 November, and it did begin in Rio Grande do Norte, but it didn't begin on 23 to 27 November in Rio Grande do Norte. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So now I understand what you are saying. Changed to "On 23 November, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte. The movement proceeded in Recife and Rio de Janeiro, where the encounters between troops were especially bloody and several people died. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until the uprisings were defeated on 27 November."
    That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only use the abbreviation PCB once in the article text; I was going to say it should be glossed in the text (not a footnote) but since it's only there once I'd either change it "Brazilian Communist Party" and eliminate the note, or introduce "PCB" as the abbreviation when you first mention the party.
    Changed to Brazilian Communist Party by itself.
    Note: Changed the second PCB mention to Communist Party. it is repetitive to say Brazilian Communist Party again since we are speaking about Brazil.
  • "were oppressed under the authority of the executive branch and the procurement of the National Congress": I have a couple of concerns about this phrase. What does "oppressed under the authority of" mean? Does it just mean "oppressed by"? If so I would cut this -- you give specific details later in the paragraph so this doesn't tell the reader anything new. If you want to say that the oppression extended beyond the examples you give, it would be better to place a comment like that at the end of the examples. And what does "procurement of the National Congress" mean? Do you mean specific legislation was passed such as the creation of the TSN? Again you give examples so I'm not sure we learn anything from the sentence.
    The procurement of the National Congress is to say that Congress was directed to oppress the left. The sentence is to place responsibility of these actions on the executive, and the examples are elaborating on how.
    I think "procurement" is not going to convey that to most readers. How about "The executive branch ordered the repression of the Communist Party in particular, and the political left-wing in general, and directed Congress to do the same. Among the resulting new government bodies was the National Commission for the Repression of Communism and the National Security Tribunal, created on 24 Janujary 1936, acting... Congress also created the National Security Tribunal in 1936 to investigate..." I'd suggest "bodies" instead of "organs" because "organ" conveys the idea of speech -- e.g. Pravda was an organ of the Soviet state, but Tass was less often described that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but "Among the resulting new government bodies was the National Commission for the Repression of Communism and the National Security Tribunal, created on 24 Janujary 1936, acting..." doesn't really make sense since it sounds like the latter was the former. I have just slightly reworded placement of those bodies.
    Yes, better. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the names of two of the "many" government organs, but without saying anything about how they inflicted oppression -- through extralegal violence? By enforcing laws designed to criminalize political behaviour? Both?
    (Oversimplified here) Torture and mass imprisonment, the latter of which is already mentioned. Also, the language used does not state or imply "many." There are terrible stories of those tortured by the government, and I will try to add further information on how they inflicted oppression. I might have to go to the library for A Concise History of Brazil, though.
    Added an anecdote of one of the five's experiences, an example of torture and how the government attacked the opposition. I also elaborated on the purposes of the two organs.
    Struck. The example adds colour and makes it clear that this was a brutal era, not just one in which political freedom was limited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused by the fact that Congress, which created these repressive organizations, was under siege in March 1936 -- surely Congress must have supported Vargas if it created those organizations? So why did it resist the police?
    I believe the article explains this. The police arrested a few, five to be exact, pro-ANL members of Congress, so it wasn't all of Congress the police attacked. I don't mind elaborating on this, but I'd like to know if you think it would be necessary.
    See above: Added information on one of the members of Congress, and also how Congress as a whole voted in favor of the government in that they removed their constitutional immunity.
    The details are helpful. I guess what I'm wondering about is the specific word "siege" -- it seems that Congress complied with the executive -- the vote of 190-59 is not close, and they passed the legislation they were asked to pass -- so why was a siege necessary? It sounds like the police showed up to arrest the assemblymen and Congress initially resisted, so the police laid siege to the building and Congress eventually complied. Is that right? If so I'd make it a bit more explicit to clarify that this compliant Congress briefly resisted: perhaps "In March, the police arrested five assemblymen who were...; Congress initially resisted the policy but gave the men up after a short siege" or whatever fits the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed "under siege" to "invaded," the language of one of the sources: "Police invaded Congress in March 1936 and arrested five assemblymen who were supporters of the National Liberation Alliance, a leftist front." Your interpretation is erroneous, however (no siege and I'm sure there was no resistance), which is a fault of my writing, so I would like to ask you how you understand this now.
    That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think an "anti-communist climate" can be said to violate the 1934 constitution; it presumably justified or led to actions that violated the constitution.
    Reworded to "The 1934 constitution essentially existed only de jure as the states of emergency and police actions violated it, supported by an anti-communist climate."
  • "Luís Carlos Prestes assumed responsibility for the movement": for what movement? And what does it mean to say he assumed responsibility "after" he was caught?
    "Movement" and other loose synonyms for "revolution" and "insurrection" refer to the 1935 uprising. With the second point, I will clean that up.
    Changed to "Luís Carlos Prestes claimed responsibility for the insurrection..."

I'm going to pause there and wait for your responses. This is quite a lot of clarification to request for two short sections. I think the problem may be that you know the material so well you don't realize what is not clear to a reader coming to these events for the first time. I haven't read through the rest; I'd like to get these points resolved and then go back through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

  • I'd suggest dropping the link from order and progress in the BIA box; it only links to an article on the flag. A red link would be better, if there's a suitable target.
    Unlinked. I don't think a red link is necessary for this, and there is no suitable target.
  • "However, the president's 1937 New Year's Address, which declared a "free and healthy atmosphere" for elections, was facing roadblocks. Across the world, war threatened Europe. At home, the states had new difficulties; the military wanted intervention, and the far-right was becoming militant." It wasn't the address that faced roadblocks, was it? Surely the Brazilian state was facing roadblocks? And a roadblock implies a direct obstacle to progress in a specific direction; I think something like "difficulties" or "threats" might work better. And can we say what "wanted intervention" means? You've already mentioned speculation about a self-coup, so is this a reference to military support for that? If so I'd be more direct about it.
  • So, with the way the source presents the information, I can only deduce that the intervention is referring to the states. Revised: "However, a "free and healthy atmosphere" for elections, declared in the president's 1937 New Year's Address, was facing difficulties. Across the world, war] threatened Europe. At home, the states had new difficulties, the military was pressuring for intervention in them, and the far-right was becoming militant."
  • "With that, political debates..." I don't know what "With that" means -- these are positive events but we've just mentioned roadblocks/difficulties/threats.
  • Changed to "With the presidential elections".
  • The states of emergency began in 1935, and I think it would be good to move part of this sentence up to the prior section. You mention the states of emergency there without giving the details you do here, so if you put some of this material before the sentence starting "The 1934 constitution essentially existed...", then here you'd only need to add "In early 1937 [or whenever the date is] Congress finally refused a request to prolong the state of emergency that had originally been declared in 1935".
    I divided it into both sections. The date of the declaration and the extensions are detailed in the communist insurrection section, while the end of the emergency is mentioned in Speculation and influential factors.
    I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the observer close to the government someone whose opinion was known to Vargas at the time, and who may have influenced Vargas? Or is this a comment from a contemporary which illuminates how the government saw the situation but which had no effect on events?
    I would presume the latter, but I would need to check the source. I hope you don't mind leaving this comment unmarked and moving on until I am able to get the source.
    No problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I have changed the sentence to match the original language of the source (not encroaching on close paraphrasing) but I am afraid it might not clarify it enough. Being that it was "government circles," one could deduce this might have meant higher-ups like Dutra, Monteiro, or Müller, but maybe not Vargas himself. If the observer is unnamed, probably too unimportant to mention, then this is probably the right conclusion. If that isn't enough, I think I will omit that detail next because there is nothing more to add here.
    I think I'd omit it. Without knowing whether this opinion was known or influential at the time I don't think the reader gains much from it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope this isn't a stretch, but I have replaced it with "and it seemed Brazil was at risk..."
    I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nazi and fascist states in Europe influenced some officers, and others by Integralism, such as Integralist General Newton Cavalcanti" This is a mixture of active and passive which doesn't work grammatically.
    Changed to "Nazi and fascist states in Europe influenced some officers. Others were affected by Integralism, such as Integralist General Newton Cavalcanti"
    I tweaked this a bit for rhythm and to avoid too many consecutive short sentences, which can sound staccato. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He did not appear as an official candidate": this seems odd -- Almeida is supported by the Vargas government, according to the previous paragraph. What happened?
    It's saying his positions and actions make him seem like an opposition candidate and he doesn't possess the characteristics of a government one. Changed to "He did not appear as if he was an official candidate..."
  • "Through 1937, the federal government interfered in different states to "nip any possible regional difficulties in the bud".[38] Vargas ordered more frequent interventions in the states, including Mato Grosso and Maranhão." Are these sentence saying essentially the same thing? If so I would combine them; it feels repetitive. Perhaps 'Through 1937, Vargas and the federal government interfered more frequently in different states, including Mato Grosso and Maranhão, to "nip any possible regional difficulties in the bud"'.
    They almost are, but I have reworded the first sentence and combined the second and third sentences in the paragraph: "Through 1937, the federal government looked to resolve regional difficulties. Vargas ordered more frequent interventions in the states, including Mato Grosso and Maranhão, the latter of which had its opposition impeached its pro-Vargas governor in Maranhão." I also paraphrased that quote because, though I don't have the source in front of me, I believe that statement was made by the authors and not the federal government, which this might imply.
  • "now found Vargas running against him": Vargas was running for governor of Rio Grande do Sul? That seems odd enough to be explicit about it (and I assume this could only happen because Vargas was not a candidate for president because of the constitutional restriction). Could we do "who had been against the president, was running for re-election, and now found Vargas running against him as a candidate for the governorship". Then we could cut "for the state assembly" from the next sentence.
    I meant this figuratively. I laughed audibly because this interpretation is wrong on so many levels and it is completely my fault. Changed to "The intervenor and governor of Rio Grande do Sul, Flores da Cunha [pt], who had been against the president, now found Vargas trying to circumscribe his power. The president increased the power of the federal military commander in Rio Grande do Sul in his attempt to contest Cunha's armed strength. Vargas also decreed a state of siege by a decree in April to attack the governor..."
  • Is Lima Cavalcanti worth a red link?
  • Yes. Linked.

Stopping there for now; will try to do more tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break edit

More:

  • "...trying to circumscribe his power. The president increased the power of..." Can we avoid the repetition of "power" here?
    Changed the first to "influence". See below
  • "The planning of what would become the Estado Novo (New State) grew because of Cunha": I don't think "grew" is the right word here -- perhaps "began"? Can we join this with the second sentence, and name the agent here rather than use the passive, like so: "Vargas's need to remove Cunha from power paved the way for the cancellation of elections, and the nullification of the federal system, and led to the planning of a new constitution and what would become the Estado Novo (New State)"?
    Changed to your sentence.
  • I think "isolate" might be better than "segregate" in that same paragraph; "isolate" has more directly military connotations.
    Changed to isolate.
  • "With the accession of Góis Monteiro [pt] to Army Chief of Staff in July 1937 and the removal of opposing officers in command, Vargas now needed to either act or be deposed." If I understand this correctly, the point being made here is that since Monteiro is sympathetic, and opposing officers are gone, Vargas now is able to act, and if he waits, the coming election will depose him, so now is the time to act. If that's right, then I think this could be clearer -- it took me a second to realize that "now needed to act" was not a question of urgency because the removal of officers placed pressure on Vargas. Perhaps "With the accession of Góis Monteiro, a Vargas ally, to Army Chief of Staff in July 1937, and the removal of opposing officers in command, Vargas now was able to act [or had freedom to act] before the elections in November dovember would unseat him".
    The point of this is that Vargas is now in a situation where he needs to act, i.e. support the military mindset, or be forced out by the military, nothing has to do with elections. Changed to ", Vargas was under increased military pressure to either act or be deposed." By the way, elections were set for January 1938.
    I hadn't realized that the military were considering deposing Vargas. Why? I assumed that Vargas was one of "the coup's organizers", but if there's evidence that some of the organizers viewed Vargas only as one of multiple options I think that should be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A military figure once said "O Golpe do Estado Novo viria com Getúlio, sem Getúlio, ou contra Getúlio," or the coup of the Estado Novo will come with Getúlio, without Getúlio, or against Getúlio. Sadly, I don't have the source and can't put this detail in the article (it's from the pt.wikipedia article and I don't have the source to confirm this is legitimate). That is why from the beginning of the article, with the now-removed comment of Monteiro, until now I have been trying to build the (real) idea that the Armed Forces are the orchestrators of this coup, and Vargas is alongside them. The Armed Forces are the final arbiter in all these scenarios, from 1889 to 1930 to 37 to 45 to the mid-50s to the lead-up of and aftermath of 64 and then to 2021, which even Oliveria recognized in his pleas to the military before and after the coup. I hope this isn't confusing. So, anyway, I have changed it to ", Vargas was under increased military pressure to either act in favor of them or be deposed."
    I won't have time to reply to most points till tomorrow, but a quick note: I searched Google Books for the Portuguese phrase you quote, and it gave me a page showing footnote 16 to chapter 27 of Redentor: A biografia do Cristo de braços abertos, ilustre morador do Corcovado, orgulho do Brasil, maravilha do mundo, by Rodrigo Alvarez, 2021, which (via Google Translate) I was able to see confirms the phrase. If that's a reliable source, would that do? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the source used on pt.wikipedia, but if you say it has the quote, it will do just fine. It is a great addition to this, too. I will look into the title and add it soon, let me just finish up the few other comments left right now. Update: So it seems that source references the pt source, Artes da política: diálogo com Amaral Peixoto. After a brief search, I found it here] on the Getulio Vargas Foundation website. Unfortunately, no source, the pt.wikipedia nor the book you found, contains the page. I will look for the statement in the book tomorrow.
    So, I found the page (136). However, it is talking about the 27 September meeting and wouldn't really fit or clarify anything in this paragraph.
    I'm not sure I follow -- the page I found has the actual quote on, and specifically ascribes it to Amaral Peixoto. If you couldn't get that to appear in Google Books I can send you a screenshot. Wouldn't that be enough to use the quote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wouldn't mind sending a screenshot with the page, that would be enough.
    Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the quote.
  • I think "stepped" is not a very natural verb. I'd go with moved; or if the point is that the took many individual steps, make it something like "The government repeatedly took steps towards a more authoritarian rule, despite..."
    Changed to "went".
  • "The official start of the coup's planning began on 18 September 1937": "start" and "begin" aren't both needed.
    Changed began to "was"
  • 'writing about a "risk to life itself", he regained his sense of adventure as shown by his diary' -- I don't follow this.
    He diary shows he gains his sense of adventure and writes about a "risk to life itself". Given the context of a military coup, I think the readers could deduce why Vargas is adventurous all of a sudden. If they don't, then at least they know that Vargas is adventurous for something, and that should be enough to set the stage for what is about to come.
    I think I follow now -- he is at risk of being deposed, and is adventurous enough to plan to take power himself. If that's right, part of the reason I hadn't followed it was that I hadn't realized the military were considering deposing him. Once the point above about clarifying that is resolved I'll come back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just removing this outright because I can neither explain it further nor risk someone getting the wrong idea from it (sorry).
  • Why might Filho allow himself to be caught forging the uprising plan?
    I am not sure if you'd like to see this, but a Brazilian historian on YouTube made a funny reenactment of the events. You might not know Portuguese, but the actions should be self-explanatory (Filho is drafting the plan on his typewriter). 0:24 to 1:26 here if you would like to understand this event. That doesn't solve the issue in the article, though. I thought it was self-explanatory, that he wanted his superiors to get hold of it, but the source restrains me from expanding on this, so I have removed it all together.
    Struck, since you've removed it, but I did watch the opening of the video and it's a pity you had to cut it. I looked again at the text you cut, and I think the problem is that if he's "caught", even if he arranges for that to happen, that doesn't imply that the people who catch him are aware of his intentions and know what to do. If they were directly in collusion, it would seem easier to just type up the plan and hand it over for propaganda use. Or is the point that being caught allows him to later claim that he knew all along it was just a theoretical document? I'm not clear why he would think he needed a cover story like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't aware, I believe, but even so seeing this "bloodthirsty" communist document detailing a violent revolution, anyone would be freaked out. The story of the Cohen Plan deserves its own article (The pt.wikipedia has a good one, featured even). But the details are too many to lay out here, sadly.
  • "This would be publicized in an AIB bulletin,[b] describing how the insurrection would go down and how the Integralists would react to it." I"m not clear if this is continuing the previous sentence, meaning that this is part of the captain's explanation of what he was doing.
    Changed to "This potential insurrection would then be publicized in an AIB bulletin, describing how the insurrection would go down and how the Integralists would react to it." It should also be clarified since the next sentence is a continuation of his explanation.
    Did you mean to strike my comment or your comment?
    Oops. Sorry; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it relevant to mention Kun? He was never involved in South America, was he? Was he such a well-known name that the parallel would have resonated in the Brazilian press?
    No, but he was the namesake for the Cohen Plan and reinforces the idea it was anti-Semitic (and, obviously, anti-communist).
    Struck. To me it seems an odd parallel to draw, but if the sources cover this then OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me down to the end of the September section. More probably tomorrow or Friday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2 edit

More:

  • "The aftermath of the document's revelation was severe. Almost immediately, on 1 October 1937, the petrified Congress convened": I think this could be trimmed to "On 1 October 1937, the day after the document's revelation, the petrified Congress convened..." The introductory sentence doesn't say anything we don't get from the next sentence.
    Changed to your sentence.
  • "Governors headed state of war commissions to suppress the opposition in every state." This isn't true, is it? In some states the governor was barred from attending the commission's meetings.
    See the next sentence, saying Rio Grande do Sul and Pernambuco were notable exceptions, and Bahia is mentioned in the next paragraph (Sao Paulo was the only other exception, but it was not notable enough to include and I'd have to double check that).
    I see you mention exceptions, but can we avoid saying "every" if that's not the case? Just "almost every" would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "At the same time, Vargas worked closely with Valadares." I think this needs more context. The only prior mention of Valadares is his involvement in the selection of Almeida as a candidate, with no explanation of who he is or what his role is.
    He was the governor of Minas Gerais. I will source this soon. Update: It has been added and sourced that he was Minas's governor in "Speculation and influential factors," and he is reintroduced at the end of the first paragraph in "October".
  • "Vargas told the press Lima's visit was to ask his opinion for a substitute presidential candidate" and "Word of Lima's visit had spread": I don't follow this. The context seems to be a parenthetical clarification of the position of "both main candidates", but Lima is not named as a candidate earlier in the article, and there's no other mention of Lima visiting Vargas at this time. Or is this a reference to Lima's visits to the states of the northeast to see if they would support the coup? If so I don't understand "ask his opinion"; Lima wasn't visiting Vargas, he was visiting governors.
    Lima's mission is for coup support. The story of seeking a substitute candidate was to set aside press rumors. Here is the text from the source Levine (1970): "During the first week of November, word leaked out of Negrão de Lima's mission to the north. To allay rumors, Vargas told the press on an off-the-record basis that Negrão had been sent in order to sound out opinion for a substitute presidential candidate. The die was now cast." I have no idea why I used "his" instead of "the states", but it has been changed to "Vargas told the press Lima's visit was to ask the states' opinions for a substitute presidential candidate." The initial information on Almeida has also been removed to avoid potential confusion, and it doesn't contribute that much anyway. As for Caffrey's interpretation of events, this might have been my fault, but I believe the language was altered during the article's copyedit and it now conveys a different message. Caffrey's interpretation goes along with Vargas's explanation to the press, which is why I am addressing it here. It has been changed to "Vargas was unable to reach an agreement with the Bahia and Pernambuco governors for another candidate" to avoid potential confusion.
    Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sales sent a manifesto": I thought this might be a reference to Armando de Sales Oliveira, but it's obviously not since we get "Oliveira and Sales" in the next sentence, so I think we need to be told who this is. And we haven't mentioned Oliveira for a long time, so I would make it something like "Oliveira, the Constitutionalist Party candidate".
    I have no idea how in the world this happened and I can't believe I actually did that. There are many discrepancies with different English-language sources and shortening names, so there are many that refer to Oliveira as Sales. All "Sales" in the article have been changed to Oliveira, and the next sentence has been changed to Oliveira and Almeida. I'll just refer to them both as the presidential candidates since Salgado has exited.
  • Is Fernando Costa worth a redlink?
    No. (Note: João Becker's redlink has been removed and redlinks have been added for Deputy Lima and General Cavalcanti)
    I think Costa might be worth it -- the Portuguese article seems quite substantial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was basing this on the importance of the person in this context, not article quality, but I think you're right and it has now been added.
    I think in general the relevance of the link to the article shouldn't matter, unless one is finding links to eliminate to avoid a sea of blue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The end of the first paragraph of "Execution" seems to say that all intervenors were replaced with new ones, but then that most were not replaced.
    There are 26 states and the federal district in Brazil, the number was probably less in 1937. Not sure the exact number, but five, with Sao Paulo being reversed after thirteen days, is not most.
    So "new intervenors were named" means that the new government produced a new list of names of intervenors in the states, but in 20 or so of the states it was the same name as before? I took "new" to mean that it was a different person. The sentence is "In every state except Minas Gerais, where Valadares, the governor, was the politician most involved with the coup, new intervenors were named." Unless I'm still misunderstanding the intended meaning I think this should be clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Almost every state retained their pre-coup interventors, notably Minas Gerais, where Valadares was the politician most involved with the coup. Interventors in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco, however, were replaced." You might notice intervenor has been changed to interventor. I thought it was a case of historians deciding to arbitrarily use Portuguese terms for some reason in their work, like "golpe," but I now realize it is an actual word.
  • ' "a great steelworks" that was to local minerals and offer employment': something wrong here; is a verb missing?
    Not sure how that happened. Changed to "that was to provide local minerals"
  • 'be of "peace, justice and work"': this is an odd use of "of"; would it be more naturally translated as "founded on" or something along those lines?
    Not a translation. Changed to "founded on".
    Looks like this change didn't get made, so I went ahead and did it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazil had purportedly been on the edge of a civil war." If this is in Vargas's broadcast I'd make that explicit.
    It's not. Actually, none of the information here is, only from secondary sources on the broadcast.
    Since "purportedly" means according to someone's interpretation, I think we need to make it clear whose interpretation this is. From what you say I would guess a historian is attributing this opinion to Vargas or to the coup organizers in general. Can we say something like "According to X, Brazil had purportedly been on the edge of a civil war" where X is Vargas or Campos or whatever is supported by your sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Source says that "X" is Vargas. Changed to that.
  • "surprisingly calm at the event": is this a comment about his calmness on the day, or just at the dinner? I think it's the former, in which I'd suggest "With surprising calm, Vargas left to the Argentine Embassy for a dinner he had accepted before knowing 10 November would be the day of the coup."
    Calmness at the dinner. The story goes that an observer was so surprised at his calmness that he called Vargas some nickname along the lines of the coldest head of state at that time. I hope it isn't repetitive, but I just changed "event" to "dinner".
    Struck, but that's a nice story; can you source it well enough to put it into a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only six opposed it, including congressional president Pedro Aleixo, though Oliveira's deputies were confined incommunicado at their residences." Suggest "Only six opposed it, including congressional president Pedro Aleixo, though this count does not include Oliveira's deputies, who were confined incommunicado at their residences."
  • Sounds a lot better. Changed.

That takes me down to the end of the Execution section; I should have time to finish the review by tomorrow at the latest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Much of the first paragraph of "A new regime" is uncited.
  • I am unsure how this happened. When I was fielding Hurricane Noah's concerns and when I separated the sole paragraph into two, I must have brought the first's sources to the second. I have looked back and made sure those were the right sources, and it is now sourced by Levine (1970) and Bourne (1974).
  • "what they believed to be its root issues—an absence of discipline, national pride, leadership, and belief in the parliamentary system of government." This sounds like they believe that an absence of belief in the parliamentary system of government was thought by the creators of the regime to be one of its root issues, but that doesn't seem to square with the fact that they promptly eliminated it. Would this be better as "what they believed to be its root issues—a populace that believed in the parliamentary system of government, and an absence of discipline, national pride, and leadership"?
  • Yes, belief in the parliamentary system was considered a root issue. I have changed it to your sentence.
  • "After a series of democratic openings toward the end of World War II, however, an increasingly uneasy military worried if Vargas would forcefully remain in power in a coup similar to the 1937 one": I think this could be clarified. It sounds as though there were steps taken towards some sort of election, and the military supported that and was concerned that Vargas would orchestrate another coup to bypass these new elections?
  • Exactly, in an oversimplified version at least. I have changed it to "an increasingly uneasy military worried if Vargas would interrupt democracy again and forcefully remain in power in a coup similar to the 1937 one," to clarify the military was in support of democracy. Is this good now?
  • From Caffery's version: "Vargas was unable to reach agreement over a third candidate for the Bahia and Pernaumbuco governors": I don't understand this.
    See the comment on Lima's visit in your previous comments.
    That makes sense, but it's a slightly opaque reference. Can you put in a parenthesis explaining that Caffery is referring to Lima's visits to the states? Or more accurately, he's referring to Vargas's cover story about those visits? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. (in reference to Vargas's cover story of Lima's visit to the Northeast);
  • "A story attributed to Francisco Campos published in The New York Times was confirmation of a fascist organization in Brazil." Does "attributed to" mean "under the byline of"? I'd use that phrase instead, or if there's no real doubt it was written by Campos, just "by". And wouldn't it be simpler just to say "confirmed that the new government in Brazil was fascist"?
    It seems, looking back at the source, I got most of it wrong. It was a statement attributed to Francisco Campos, not a story, and the source says "affirming Brazil's fascist organization," so I have changed it to your sentence. Sorry about that.
    I took a look at the original article, since I have a subscription to the NYT. I can send it to you if you want; having read it I don't think we can say in Wikipedia's voice that it affirms fascism in Brazil. For example it says that Campos claims the new constitution "strengthens democracy". It goes on to describe some quite undemocratic provisions, but I think it would be better to attribute this to your secondary source -- Bourne or Levine or both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could that'd be great. I'll take a look at it and then attribute it to whoever made that claim, probably Levine from my memory.
    If you email me using the "Email this user" link in the left side-bar on my user page, I'll reply with a copy of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it seems this is supported by the "US fears fascism.pdf". The first paragraph states, "The constitutional and dictatorial moves of President Getulio Vargas of Brazil have appeared upon today, upon the basis of incomplete reports, to have posed the problem of a Fascist government in this hemisphere".
    Well, the article still says "attributed to Francisco Campos", so that still needs to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is some way that could be connected, but I have removed that since it doesn't explicitly say it. It also says late November, but I'll just remove it. Uh, I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I missed a footnote in the source, and apparently the NYT article was from 29 November 1937. Is there any way you could look at the newspaper that day if it's not too much? I'm not sure if you already sent it because you specified there were multiple articles in the email from the announcement of the coup, but all those are from 10 and 11 November, right?
    No problem; sent. It doesn't mention fascism directly, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, will remove attribution to Campos.
  • "in an attempt to distort any move to the right": suggest "limit" instead of "distort".
    Done.

That's it for a first pass. Once these points are addressed I'll go back through and also look at the lead, which I skipped this time through. Overall I think this is pretty close; I asked for lots of little clarifications but it seems clear the material is all here and the structure is right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass edit

A couple more points from another read through (and there is just one point left from my comments above):

  • "Communist journals in Brazil and L'Humanité in France put the number as 20,000 and 17,000, respectively, but the number is actually placed between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests": I think we should attribute the "between 5,000 and 15,000" figures. Can we say "but modern historians estimate there were" or something like that?
    Changed to "but historian Robert M. Levine places the number as anywhere between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests."
  • "In June, Salgado stepped in and declared himself to be": do we need "stepped in"? He's already described as a candidate.
    Removed stepped in, but also minorly reworded the sentence.
  • Not something that I think has to be fixed, but I tend to agree with FunkMonk's comment below that the quotebox isn't an ideal format for conveying information about the Integralists. I think some of the information isn't really needed in this article (e.g. green shirts, parades); some is useful context which could be integrated into the article (they were fascistic, nationalistic, and church-centered); and some seems relevant but could be a footnote (the later attempted putsch). I wouldn't let the use of the quotebox prevent me from supporting this article, but I don't think it's necessary.
    Now that three people have brought it up, I have removed the quotebox and retained a little information in the first paragraph of "Speculation and influential factors" after Salgado's entry.
  • "Vargas also decreed a state of siege by a decree in April to attack the governor": repetition of "decree".
    Removed "decreee".
  • I don't know how you'd do this with {{sfn}}, but we need to indicate where in Alvarez the quote is found. Can sfn include text for the pagination field? If so I'd put something like "unpaginated: footnotes to chapter 26".
    It looks a bit odd, but it should suffice.

That's everything I can see this pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just the issue with the NYT article and the attribution to Campos left now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had a lot of comments, but everything is now resolved, and I am happy to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. Appreciate the thorough review. FredModulars (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War II is duplinked.
  • The second link has been removed.
  • Not sure, but I wonder if the first two footnotes could get citations?
  • I think that is really unnecessary. Nonetheless, I have sourced them.
  • "The paulistas instigated a brief" A bit esoteric, explain in-text this means inhabitants of Sao Paolo?
I think it's fine if you explain it without citations. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
@FunkMonk: Not sure if this reply was subject to oversight. FredModulars (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to Vargas himself:" When did he say this?
  • Sometime after the communist rebellion when Vargas and his daughter Alzira had a discussion on it. Changed to "Vargas himself commenting on the situation:"
  • "put the number as 20,000 and 17,000, respectively, but the number could have been anywhere between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests." If the latter interval is supposed to be the most inclusive possibility, why is the last amount mentioned less? Who gives the lower number?
  • Filinto Müller, Chief of Federal District Police during much of Vargas's time in power, put it at around 7,000, but only counting for federal arrests. The first amount is less because it was made by pro-communists and one could deduce communists would be biased towards communists and there would be more arrests by their tally. I have changed it to, "but the number is actually placed between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests," to clarify this.
  • "in June, Salgado stepped in and declared he was Jesus's injunction to the electorate." Does "he" refer to himself or someone else?
  • Himself. Changed to "declared himself to be" to avoid confusion.
  • "following the path of Spain—destroyed by civil war." Link the war?
  • Done.
  • "such as Integralist General Newton Cavalcanti, were affected by Integralism" A bit redundant to present him as "Integralist" then?
  • Removed "Integralist".
  • "The Brazilian Integralist Action party" A bit odd to use the quotebox for what appears to be an infobox, which would make more sense as a footnote?
  • I'll reiterate what I said in this article's GA review: The quotebox is to explain the AIB. The AIB had a strong influence on the military and is brought up later, such as how one of them fabricated the infamous Cohen Plan. They were, essentially, the only other major political force in this constitutional era other than the Communists and their ANL, now being oppressed by the government and already given attention to in the previous section. So, I think it's important their role be addressed at the least and stressed at the most. This can't be done in either an infobox or footnote.
I wonder if there are other templates that could be used, my issue is mainly that it is specifically a quotebox, which has a specific purpose, and its design (if recognised from other aticles) may confuse readers as to what the text is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. I got the idea of using a quotebox to explain the AIB from the article Revolt of the Lash#Mutiny. I think the distinction from other cases is clear since here it has a title (in most other circumstances I have seen only the quote) and the text is not attributed. I think neither an infobox nor a footnote would be appropriate here.
So, now that three people have brought it up, I have removed the quotebox and incorporated some of its text into the first paragraph of Speculation and influential factors after Salgado's entry.
  • "had its opposition impeached its pro-Vargas governor in Maranhão" Impeach?
  • I'm not sure if you don't understand the statement or are pointing out the incorrect verb tense. I believe it's the latter, so I've changed it to "impeach."
The tense. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considers the document was "a blatant forgery"" Don't think "was" is needed, or would be less jarring as "to have been".
  • Changed to "to have been".
  • Done.
  • "It reads: "New Sstate" An s too many?
  • Yeah, my keyboard has problems with some keys. Fixed.
  • A minister of justice is mentioned a few times, any reason why we don't get a name?
    His name is mentioned in a footnote at the end of "November".
Any reason why he can't be named in-text? FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added his name.
  • "the former the seat of the Senate" Seems the second "the" is redundant.
    Removed.
  • "later being exiled in 1938" To where?
    Added.
  • Perhaps it could be stated under aftermath when Brazil returned to democracy?
    It is? The last paragraph of a new regime summarizes Vargas's fall and the subsequent election of Dutra.
But it "ends" with his return and suicide, what happened after? Doens't have to go into detail, but I am left wondering whether he was replaced by another dictatorship or democracy. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Spoilers) The political crisis would turn into a presidential coup if not for his suicide, postponing that for 10 years until the 1964 coup installed the Military dictatorship in Brazil. This new information would be drifting too far away from the 1937 coup and is unrelated to the subject itself or its aftermath.
Hmmm, but since the subject has consequences for the overall history of Brazilian democracy vs dictatorships, I'd think it warrants at least a footnote? At least a short acknowledgment that this wasn't the end of dictatorship in Brazil or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know my addition is extremely short ("The government was overthrown again in 1964, ushering in a period of military rule."), but I think it conveys this idea.
  • "condemned the neutrality of the United States Department of State" But were there any official US response? And did the "neutrality" have anything to do with American anti-Communism, as has been the case when it came to many other right-wing dictatorahips?
    "other right-wing dictatorahips" the Estado Novo cannot be classified entirely as "right-wing". I added a quote from a primary source which should help.
  • "The German Propaganda Minister" Name him?
    Done. Already mentioned in the source.
  • "Brazil's foreign minister" Name him?
    Done.
  • "but his close friend in Washington, D.C., Sumner Welles" What was his occupation?
    Added.
  • "European fascists were the only ones expressing supportive opinions." Including Portuguese? Would be interesting to hear the Portuguese reactions specifically, for obvious reasons.
    So, I have checked sources that would probably talk about this and went on the Portuguese Ministry of External Relations website. There is nothing, and a search online doesn't speak on their reaction to the coup.
  • "having his state's militia be incorporated" I think "be" is unnecessary.
    Removed.
  • "the new regime, the Estado Novo." Translate in parenthesis, as you do in the article body?
    Done.
  • The intro could mention how long the new government stayed in power.
    Done.
  • Support - interesting subject I knew little about, but the article explains it well. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, FunkMonk. Appreciate the comments and the review. FredModulars (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I'm not sure if this is how I should ask the question, but with 3 general reviews (all supporting) and passed image and source reviews, is there anything left for this candidate to be promoted or to be considered as having consensus? Thanks. FredModulars (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I happened to see in the edit history that you had to fix the ping, so it won't have worked -- pings only work if you add them in the same edit as a signature, and you signed in one edit and fixed the ping in the next edit. I'm not a coordinator, but I can answer the question for you, having seen the question answered many times before -- with three supporting reviews and having passed image and source reviews, and no substantial opposes, you just have to wait until a coordinator has time to review and decide if they think more reviews are needed. The nomination is in no danger of getting archived, so you can feel free to start working on your next FAC... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thank you very much for the reply. I'm new to this process, so I just wanted to inquire if anything else was needed because I can't seem to find anything explicitly mentioning this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks for clearing that up, I really appreciate it. FredModulars (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2021 (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/1937_Brazilian_coup_d%27état/archive1&oldid=1059432383"