![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
João Felipe C.S is doing vandalism in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says that no users can manipulate an article. He cannot stop us from editing in this article.
It is written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN
João Felipe C.S should be adiviced that he cannot reverte everyone's editis here. Opinoso 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is full protected for a month. Please, I have a request to all the users editing this article: try to reach a consensus. Regards, -- Carioca 02:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The main thing here is that NOTHING has been done against the user who is vandalizing this article. I am not here to cause an edit war, that is not my point. I am just trying to make contributions to this article.
Wikipedia is clear when it says users cannot manipulate an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN
João Felipe C.S is reverting my edits and other users' posts in the Brazil article for months. He thinks only he is able to make changes here.
In the past, the Brazil article used to be one of the most posted ones of Wikipedia. Users from all around the world were here making their contributions. Since João Felipe C.S started his manipulation, all the other users disappeared from this article. I was the only one who lasted here, because I think it is not fair that he came here and started to manipulate the article and destroyed it.
If, at least, he was doing a good job, it would be easier to accept. But he made the article become poor, with lots of unecessary images, trying to create the false idea that Brazil looks like Norway or Finland, as if Brazil was a First-World Northern European country. Brazil is a country full of contrasts, not a First-World nation as it seems to be when you look at this article.
It is abvious that he was trying to manipulate the article, because he listed himself among the Good Article Candidates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates
João Felipe C.S assumed by listing himself that he thinks he is the owner of the article. But he has never written anything for this article. He does not even have knowledge of the English language. So why does he feel free to control what is posted here? Why should he be the one to manipulate the article?
You people should tell him that he cannot manipulate an article as he has been doing for the last months. Other users and I want to be free to make good contributions for it. He cannot control what is posted here. Opinoso 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
João Felipe C.S is the one who is trying to fight here. I do not understand why some people obviously defend him. He was the one who started all this situation here, reverting my edits, because I have always been trying to show the reality of Brazil is this article, while he tries to hide the bad things of the country and create a fake Brazil, posting pictures of rich neighborhoods to represent Brazilian cities, erasing the pictures of favelas, posting pics of
blonde supermodels to represent the Brazilian population, erasing pictures of world-famous Brazilian beaches, posting pictures of museums and erasing Carnival ones. Since when a museum is culturally more representative of Brazil than the carnival?
João Felipe C.S tries to create a Brazilian that looks like Europe. But not a normal Europe. He tries to make a false Brazil that looks like the richest parts of Europe.
I know why João Felipe C.S tries to manipulate this article and is against my edits. When he started posting here, some months ago, he came with all those pictures of blond supermodels and erasing pictures that shows a Brazilian reality (poverty), he was reverted by many users. He, with a vandal sense, wrote in Portuguese: "Vocês não podem aceitar que um país de terceiro mundo se pareça com um de primeiro mundo""? (Can't you people accet that a Third-World country looks like a Firest-World country"?)
Since then, I have been observing what he was doing in Wikipedia: posting pictures of blonde models everywhere to represent Brazilians, vandalizing the Afro-Brazilian article, trying to diminish their numbers, inflating the numbers of White Brazilian ethnic groups with no sources, erasing pictures of favelas, posting pictures with parts of rich Brazilian cities and erasing poors ones (mostly Northeastern ones), posting lots of pics of Southern Brazil (he seems to be a regional nationalist), etc, etc.
The most incredible thing is that nobody seems to have seen that, only me. I tried to talk to him, but he was offensive and prefered to create an edit war in this article. All this posts seemed Racist, and it still does: when I posted pictures of Blacks and Brazilian Indians, he reverted me with no justification. When I posted a picture of a German-Brazilian city, he did nothing.
Dali-Llama, you acuse me of saying that nobody could change my edits. I never said that. After many months of João Felipe C.S's revertions' here with no justification (administrators again did not see that), I came here, after doing a big resouce, and post many informations in the article. Once again, João Felipe C.S reverted what I wrote. So I told him that he cannot do that, as I am saying now.
I ask Dali-Llama if he would feel happy if you dedicate months in an article (as I did in the Brazil) and, suddenly, an user comes, change it all (for worse) and starts to manipulate the article, reverting what you want to post. Do you think it is ethical?
The main thing is that the user cannot even write in English, I mean, he has never done any contribution in this article and feels free to manipulate it and what other people post here (most of the time he does not even understand what people post and revert it).
Dali-Llama, I am the only one who is complaining about his manipulation because the other users who used to post here have disappered since he got here. Maybe I am the only one who has been obersing what he has been doing all this time. You say we have to see only the content changes, but it became impossible, because João Felipe C.S made it be personal. Many time he went to "my contributions page" page and started to revert all the things I have been posted the last days. Many times he reverted over 3 times. Once again, no administrators saw that. Opinoso 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I will say what I think must be done, Opinoso.
List the changes you don't like and the changes you want to do, to make this article a better representation of Brazil.
Give the motives to each one. Don't attack anybody, don't talk about João, just about the article.
We will coment and try to reach a consensus. For "we", I mean anybody, everybody, whoever wants to opine.
The concept Wikipedia uses for this sittuation is negociation to reach a neutral stance, not judgment for decide who's "right". wildie· wilđ di¢e. wilł die 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with no reverts. I just don't like it, I just use it against vandalism.
What I want to be changed in this article are all those unnecessary pictures:
History session: There are no pictures of Historical Brazilian cities there. Brazil is full of wonderfull colonial towns, such as Ouro Preto, Olinda, Mariana, São João del-Rei, Parati, etc. The section needs more pictures. Getúlio Vargas's pic should be erased, there were more important presidents in Brazil. He was a dictator. The Portugal article does not have a picture of dictator António de Oliveira Salazar and the Chile one does not have one of Pinochet, why sould we?
Government and politics: I think the National Crongress picture should be erase and replaced by a beautiful picture of the Planalto Central in Brasília. It is much more representative than all those unknown politicians doing nothing there.
Law: The picture of both politicians should be erased. They are not so important to be in an article about Brazil. Many other Brazilians are more important to the country and are not in the article. It should be replaced with a of a Brazilian city court, maybe one from Brasilia.
Administrative divisions: This session talks about the Brazilian divisions and has no picturs of Brazilian cities. The session has almost no pictures of Northeastern cities. Why not put some there?
Geography and climate: Brazil is 90% tropical and world-famous for its beaches. There should have a picture of a Brazilian beach, maybe one from Rio de Janeiro.
Yes, Brazilian beaches are unique. Our beaches are world-famous and most Brazilians live along the coast. Again, a pic of a beach of Rio de Janeiro should be included. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Economy: São Paulo is the richest city of Brazil and there should have a picture of it. It is impossible to see the Itaipu picture, it is too dark. The pic of Bovespa is totally unnecessary. Why not replace it with a pic of an important Brazilian city, such as Belo Horizonte or Porto Alegre?
Demographics: This session has almost no pictures. There should be represented the ethnical diversity of Brazil: Whites, Blacks, Indians, Asians, Mixed-Race people. All those celebrity pictures should be erased. Celebrities do not represent a country's population demography.
Largest cities: The pictures seem out of place in the box. Maybe it would be better to put them out of it.
Languages: The picture of
Gramado has nothing to do with the session. Maybe it would be better to post a picture of a place that represents the Portuguese Language, such as the
Museum of the Portuguese Language of
São Paulo.
Social issues: Better pictures of poor Brazilian neighborhoods should be posted there.
Culture: It is impossible to talk about Brazilian culture and not to mention the
Brazilian Carnival or the
Samba. The
Niterói Contemporary Art Museum pic does not represent our culture in nothing.
Religion: The Pope visitation to Brazil's picture should be included. Brazil has the largest Roman Catholic population is the world.
Sports: A picture of a Brazil team soccer game should be included and also a pic of an important athlete should be posted, such as Ronaldinho Gaúcho.
Science and technology: I do not know if Marcos Pontes deserves a picture in the Brazil article. He seems to be more a Rede Globo's myth than a national hero. Other picture that really represents the national technology should replace it.
Well, these are my suggestions of changes in this article.
Comment them, please. Opinoso 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is way too long as has been said again and again on its FAC and GAC nominations. I think one of the causes of this problem is that it has too many sections: 18 not including see also, references and external links. It would be a good idea to check out the guidelines set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. They suggest just seven sections: History, Politics, Subdivisions, Geography, Economy, Demographics and Culture to which you could add Etymology. That would bring sections down from 18 to 8, all other topics should just be referred to in the "See also" section. What does everybody else thinks? -- Victor12 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, I'm declaring thread bankruptcy. I can't follow comments on a time-tag basis and I think we all agree that the article size needs to be reduced, and we have to roll up our sleeves and do it. Let's do this: Section by section, let's discuss what can be/has been cut, and its relocation to its own article. Let's adopt the following procedure (Feel free to ammend it):
"When removing content, a)summarize the change, b)explain the (ir)relevancy of the content removed c)indicate whether or not content was relocated to a sub-article. Sign individual changes (as we did in Opinoso's issues thread). If replying to a specific change (as opposed to adding your own), indent your comment under the specific change."-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Intro
1 Etymology
2 History
2.1 Colony
2.2 Empire
2.3 Republic Removed Operation Condor piece. Already mentioned in Operation Condor article. Deals with individual government action. Relocated to Fernando Henrique Cardoso Article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I think this section suffers from recentism, there's too much detail on the 1990s. The last two paragraphs could be reduced to just three sentences. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
3 Government and politics Removed: "On certain matters, the Executive and Judiciary authorities may have exclusive prerogatives for legislative initiative." (seems too detailed). And edited for brevity.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "Voting is also optional for
illiterate people". Again, too detailed.--
Dali-Llama
04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed "...as well as basic administrative conditions" I don't know what that means, to be honest. I don't know if it warrants inclusion elsewhere.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "A tax reform aiming at unifying the value-added tax in the country is currently being voted at the National Congress, and its approval and implementation are currently in the government policy agenda." That's old news and hasn't produced any actual results. Certainly an individual reform with little-to-no consequence shouldn't be in the main article with the space constraints we have.
Comment: I think the last paragraph should be deleted. It deals with economics, it does not belong under "Government and politics". -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
4 Foreign relations and the military Removed: "...and act at times as a countervailing force to U.S. political and economic influence in Latin America." Kind of already addressed in the Foreign relations of Brazil article, and certainly not as black-and-white as the sentence sounds.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "Both air divisions transferred their equipments, installations and personnel to the new armed force." Too detailed for this article and already addressed in the FAB article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "...and as of July 8, 2005, had 66,020 personnel on active duty. An additional 7,500 civilian personnel are employed by the Air Force". It's a fluctuating number and addressed in the main FAB article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: ", some American and British-built frigates, a few locally-built corvettes, coastal diesel-electric submarines and many other river and coastal patrol craft" Same rationale as above. We don't start talking about Tucanos and Mirages for the FAB: it's a never-ending spiral.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There's too much detail on foreign policy. That paragraph should be cut. All that comes after Brazil's current foreign policy is based on could be removed and transfered to Foreign relations of Brazil. As for the paragraph on the military, there's still some details that could be cut like the numer of aircraft, the mention of the São Paulo aircraft carrier or the strength of the Brazilian Army. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
5 Law
Comment: This section is way too long and its kind of redundant with the "Government" and "Administrative Divisions" sections. Useful content should go to those sections, the rest should be removed from this article. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
6 Administrative divisions
6.1 Regions Deleted subsection header: The whole section deals with regions so there's no point in having "Regions" as a header. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
6.2 States Deleted section. Hey, did anyone notice that the information in this section is replicated in the government/politics section? What isn't duplicated (the comarca thing), if far too detailed for inclusion in the main article. If so, then it doesn't follow to have one paragraph then a sub-section-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
7 Geography and climate
8 Environment
9 Economy Removed: "Brazil's diverse industries range from automobiles, steel and petrochemicals to computers, aircraft, and consumer goods and amount to one-third of the GDP." Already addressed at the top paragraph. How much of the GDP it consists can be left to the main article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The third and maybe the fifth paragraphs could be deleted without harming this section. They could be moved to Economy of Brazil if they are not already there. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I think the problem in this section is not size, but some mild POV. It puts too much emphasis on strengths of Brazil's economy in detriment of the problems. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
10 Demographics
10.1 Ethnic groups Comment: This section could be deleted, there's already an extensive section dealing with immigration and the ethnic groups that make up Brazil. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
10.2 Immigration and emigration Comment: This section could be deleted, too much detail for the country article. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
10.3 Largest cities
Comment: Does this need to be a separate section? -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: the whole intro talks about historical aspects of demographics. I think it can be relocated to a sub page. I also think we can keep the "ethnic groups" sub section as the main part of the section itself and save two or three paragraphs from immigration and emigration to add to that. "Largest cities" can go too. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
11 Languages Comment: Way too much detailed, could be reduced to a single paragraph. For instance the extensive description of Brazilian portuguese is irrelevant. A link to the proper subarticle would be enough. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
12 Education and health Comment: There's only a very small paragraph related to health, you might as well remove it and rename the section "Education". -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
13 Social issues
14 Culture Comment: Need urgently of references for this section. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
15 Religion Comment: Too much detail, the first paragraph would be enough. If people want more info they can go to the Religion in Brazil article. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
16 Sports
17 Science and technology
18 See also Comment: Too many templates. Only the first one should stay. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
19 References
19.1 Footnotes
19.2 Further reading
20 External links
Minor changes include aligning pictures to the right per WP:MOS. I'm sorry if I've removed someone's edits (I'm sure I have), but this is one of those bold moments. Resist the temptation to press the revert button: make edits as you see fit, but try to address the changes individually. Let's roll-up those sleeves!-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The sections: "Religion", "Sports" and "Science and technology" possess ideal sizes. The other sections could have the same size. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Picture alignment RFC: According to the Manual of Style: Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes.
I I have implemented the policy, and shifted all pictures that are left-aligned at the beginning of the section to the right. Sections such as Economy, which have two pictures, I've alternated them left and right, with the first picture being aligned right. Felipe feels that this may not esthetically pleasing, even if according to policy. It's a fair point, though I disagree. What do others think?-- Dali-Llama 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally the users if had joined to improve the Brazil article. This is fantastic. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
1.Size: The article has been reduced to 85 Kb. Readable prose stands at 42 Kb.
2.Structure: It has been reorganized according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries standards - we now have only 8 sections: History, Politics, Administrative Divisions, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Culture, and Science and Technology.
3.Prose quality: There may still be one or two mistakes here and there, but I personally think prose quality is stable, accurate and good enough.
4.Images: I believe there is an adequate number of images and most or all of them are relevant and of very good quality.
5.References: There are 140+ references. I believe more than enough.
6.Neutrality: We've had a lot of problems with this in the past, but I think we've now reached a consensus on most subjects, although one or two users still try to hide certain things. In general, I think neutrality is passable.
7.Tables and Info boxes: They seem well organized to me.
I ask everyone: what else do we need to do here? Are we ready for a convincing GA nomination? If you think there are things still requiring our attention, by all means feel free to list them here! Sparks1979 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, congratulations everyone on managing this reduction without edit wars or excessive personal attacks. I think the most emotionally charged thing in wikipedia is removal of content (God knows what I've gone through reviewing articles for deletion), so I'm pleasantly shocked that this has gone so well.-- Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as being ready for GA, let's look directly at the criteria from WP:GA?:
1)Well written?
2)Factually accurate?
3)Broad coverage?
4)NPOV?
5)Stable?
6)Images?
Conclusion:
Comment: Good job everyone! Prose has been brought down to a more manageable size and in quite a short time I must say. It's good to see the article has so many interested editors willing to help. Having said that, here are some suggestions for further improvement:
The aforementioned subsection has seen a lot of activity in the last few days, and it has been the center of controversy between myself and another user.
I made an expansion that in my eyes matches what users have been calling for in many of our past debates. I made brief mentions to general social problems any Brazilian is aware of. So which problems did I mention?
Well, I didn’t add this simply because I felt like it. I added it because in past discussions (check archived debates), several users complained about the lack of mention to problems in Brazil's article. People complained the article was full of POV, that no social problems such as violence or other issues was ever mentioned or discussed. Users complained dirt was pushed under the carpet. I have a neutral opinion. I’m not in favor of a negative view of the country. Brazil is an economical powerhouse. That’s undeniable – the country has one of the largest GDPs in the world. In the other hand, social problems in Brazil can be quite dramatic. We all know Brazil is a country of contrasts. So I think a neutral view should present both sides – the economical power and the social and institutional shortcomings. Brazil is not a Banana Republic, but it is very far from development in social terms.
If you think social issues shouldn’t be mentioned, fine, but at least explain why. Two arguments have been mentioned, but they are quite lousy:
Currently the social issues subsection only mentions poverty. I wrote a brief mention to all the other problems in a short 4 line paragraph, but that seemed to bother some people. So what do other people think? I’m trying to be democratic about this. If people don’t reply, I will just keep adding the information back every time I visit the page, but if people decide this type of data should be inserted in a sub page, I will have no problem with that either. I don’t force my personal opinions on other people, but if people don’t bother saying what they think, I will just have to proceed according to my own personal thoughts. I will be back to check this in about two days. Sparks1979 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've read the previous discussion and this one as well. To be perfectly honest, I think that the social issues brought up by Sparks should in fact be mentioned. The section is important: the issue is really how it's approached. Country articles have a bad habit of being overly positive about their subjects as most people hesitate to denigrate their homeland in front of foreigners (though we do so freely at home, admit it!).
At the same time, while this is a necessary section, it is also an WP:OR and WP:NPOV minefield. Finally, I think the article needs the section more than some of the existing information currently there. So this is the compromise I propose:
Sparks, write up how you think the social issues section should look like, and make sure the sources are beyond reproach and as quantitative as possible. At the same time, if the proposal is larger than the existing blurb, indicate where you think the article could lose more content to make up for an increase in social issues. Right now we need some form of wiki- fiscal responsibility, where for content that we'd like to add, we need to remove it elsewhere. After we have a proposal to look at, we'll all pitch in to take a look and see if it meets OR, RS and NPOV rules. As I said, I think this is a terribly important section, but there are several "landmines" to avoid in drafting it.-- Dali-Llama 21:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the layout of the article still can be improved. I am working in a model here. When to finish, I will present here in talk page and we could make a voting. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I finished the model. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
* The lead section seems mostly good. However, it should be a summary of the article, and as such, should not contain reference citations (the citations should be in the article text itself). Editors might also want to check out the last paragraph of the lead. Why does "throughout the 90s" have a citation on it? the reference should be at the end of the sentence. This last paragraph could probably be rewritten to provide just a mere summary of the economy as a whole, don't start out by mentioning its recent economic revolution.
* In the 'history: empire' section: "It specified indirect elections and created the usual three branches of government ..."; while I can guess that the editors are talking about the legislative, executive and judicial, I don't think it's wise to let the reader guess at this. Every nation is different.
* Write out the names of each political party mentioned here: "Four political parties stand out among several small ones: PT, PSDB, PMDB and DEM, formerly PFL." The abbreviations are pretty much meaningless to someone that is not from Brazil, and few people will want to click on each link just to find out what they mean. Done
Carlosguitar
08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* The 'politics' section really talks more about the organization of the government rather than the political landscape. This section should be called 'government', with a brief mention of the political parties. Change the link to the
Politics of Brazil article from a 'main article:' link to a 'see also:' link, to somewhat de-emphasize that the section is about politics and in fact, more about government. The two subsections here also seem to be concerned with various parts and/or functions of government, rather than politics.
* "Major rivers include the Amazon, the largest river in the world in flowing water volume,..." -- remove the word 'flowing', maybe change to "in terms of volume of water". Done
Carlosguitar
08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* "Most of Brazil has moderate rainfall of between 1,000 and 1,500 millimeters a year" -- Is there some reason why the measurement is not indicated in cm (100-150 cm)? It is general practice that you should use the unit of measurement that produces the lowest quantity (e.g. instead of writing 1,000 m, you write 1 km). There's a couple of other measurements in the 'climate' section like this to check out as well.
* Also, regarding units of measurement, it would be nice if the non-metric equivalents were provided in parentheses for readers not familiar with the metric system (but please don't blame me for the fact that
my country) won't adopt the superior metric system. At the very least, though, temperatures in both Celsius & Fahrenheit should be provided, since °F is a bit more common.
* In the second paragraph of the 'environment' section, the phrase "country of the world" seems to be repeated twice in two successive sentences, which makes for awkward reading. I would change the wording to only use that phrase once. There is also a comma after the second sentence, where I think a period was intended. I am not sure why the word 'quick' is in parentheses in the third paragraph? It doesn't seem to be needed here -- perhaps remove it.
* "Possessing large and well-developed agricultural, mining, manufacturing,[90] and service sectors, as well as a large labour pool, Brazil's GDP (PPP) is the highest of Latin America becoming the core economy of Mercosul." -- This first sentence in the economy section seems kind of awkward, and mainly a run-on sentence. Starting with "Possessing large and well-developed" seems to be a weird beginning, and the last part seems to run-on,... rephrase.
* This sentence really needs to be sourced: "According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP) and tenth largest at market exchange rates."
* Perhaps a wikilink to the
Brazilian real article in the economy section would help for those interested in learning more about the currency? Likewise, since the dollar is mentioned, link to the
United States Dollar article as well.
* "The largest Brazilian cities are: São Paulo with 11.0 millions,..." -- In this sentence, the proper form would be "11.0 million" (million is written as singular, not plural). Ditto for the other two mentions of the word.
* In the 'education and health section', single years should not be wikilinked.
* "Diplomas and certificates are proof of having passed through higher education." -- this rather broad sentence could probably be removed; it's not unique to Brazil, and it sounds like something
Ric Romero might write.
* Brazilian annalists? Are you sure you got this spelling right? The 'education and health' section mostly contains education, with a single sentence devoted to health issues. I think education itself fails into a pretty broad enough category that it should be in its own main section, rather than a subsection of 'demographics'. More information can be written about health care, which probably should make it into its own section. Does Brazil have socialized health care? What are some of the major hospitals? How does health care in Brazil rate to other nations?
* [Social issues] "Some social and political issues that plague other countries are either mild or practically non-existent problems in Brazil." -- this unsourced sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. What social and political issues and what countries are you referring to? I'm not sure that it's really important, and sounds more like filler that was added to make Brazil sound better compared to other countries. It could probably be eliminated.
* Mention of the Brazilian Space Agency is good. It might be nice to elaborate on some of the agencies accomplishments, however.
* Eliminate the 'see also' section and move the 'Major topics in Brazil' template to the bottom of the article. Done
Carlosguitar
09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* Remove the 'footnotes' subheading in the 'references' section, and change 'further reading' to a level 2 heading (main section). Done
Carlosguitar
09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* Make sure that any URLs used as references have dates of retrieval included in them. All references, even websites, should contain full information (author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date of retrieval). See
WP:CITE for more information on formatting reference citations.
* There seems to be an overall inconsistency in the placement of inline citations in the article. The citation should be placed at the end of each sentence, immediately AFTER the punctuation mark, not before it, and not after the punctuation mark and after a space. Multiple references attached to the same sentence should be placed one after the other, with no space in between. I can let a couple of these slide for GA status, as it's less important, but there seems to be a pretty large amount of inconsistent references in the article that I thought worth mentioning.
I think this article is mostly there in terms of the
GA criteria, although there's still several issues that remain. The prose it mostly good, with a couple of minor issues, mostly little grammatical ones that a good copyedit can fix (criterion 1). It is sufficiently referenced, and broad, meeting criteria 2 & 3. I think it's mostly
NPOV (criterion 4). I am a little concerned regarding its stability (5), due to the recent edit war of about a week ago. The only image that I really see a problem with is the one of the airplane in the technology section; it is copyrighted, and if used, needs a fair use rationale added to its description.
While I am sort of on the fence about failing this article, due to the amount of changes required, considering its recent GA nomination history, and the fact that there appears to be a good amount of editors actively working on it, I am going to place it on hold at
WP:GAC, pending revision, for a period of 7 days. At the end of this period, I'll revisit the article and promote it, if the issues have been addressed. If they haven't, I'll fail it (an extension may be in order if I see a lot of progress). But if there is a lot of reverting going on in the next week, it'll fail due to
criterion 5. Cheers!
Dr. Cash
05:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
On issues mentioned in concluding remarks:
Done Replaced non-free image of Embraer jetliner with free alternative illustrating same conclusion.--
Dali-Llama
17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
At first glance, the article is a big improvement. I'm going to go over it again in the next couple of days, plus I'd like a few more days just to make sure the article meets the stability criteria (the racism accusations in the section after this review make me a bit weary that the article could still have stability issues, so I just want to make sure.
Also, I still think that a section right before 'history' called 'name' could help. Move that first paragraph in the history section to it, and add the pronunciation information that's currently in reference #1 there. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The latest vandalism of João Felipe C.s was against humanity. His picture about Brazilian people separated people considering their skin colour. Blacks are located at the bottom, blondes at the top.
Everyone should know that Brazilians are all the same, there is no such thing as a 100% white or black Brazilian. That is the latest work of our dear João Felipe C.s., the man who knows this country better than anyone else.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KREATOR OF BO ( talk • contribs).
I sincerely hope this isn't Opinoso with a sockpuppet.-- Dali-Llama 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Dali-Llama, are you really acusing me of attacking João Felipe C.S with another user name? You have to prove what you are saying. This is not how a real administrator should act.
I do not need to log in another user to say what I want.
By the way, I do not know why you keep protecting João Felipe C.S from his abuses in the Wikipedia. Maybe it is because you agree with all his deliriums that Brazil is a copy of Germany.
It is obvious that I am not the only one who has been observing all that. Those pictures of celebrities are horrible. I agree with the user who says that the Black ones are under the White ones.
Why are the Blacks representated by ugly people, such as Ronaldinho, Benedita da Silva and Pelé, and the blonds with Supermodels such as Ana Hickmann and Gisele Bündchen? Why not try to find pictures of Taís Araújo or Camila Pitanga to represent the Black-Brazilian beauty too?
I think that if we want to represent the Brazilian people, we must post pictures of unknown persons, not supermodels or celebrities. Where are pics of mixed-race people, who do represent the majority of Brazilians?
Do you really think that an ordinary blond Brazilian looks like Ana Hickmann? Not even in Finland people look as blond as she is.
By the way, why does João Felipe C.S keep erasing the day-light picture of the Favela and posting the dark one? It is because he wants to hide it, because he is into his fantasy that Brazil looks like Germany, with blond girls and First-World cities.
These article's pictures are all fantasies inside your minds. The real Brazil is totally different from that.
Comment: Dali-Llama, I am waiting for you to prove that I am using another user name in this discussion. Opinoso 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we're back to deciding which pictures to post. -- Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are the candidates, divided per section:
Note: all pictures are from the commons, so our choices do not affect the GA process.
Option 1
![]() |
Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Note: The previous picture, the Mirage 2000 one, is not properly tagged, so it needed to be replaced (it was supposedly a Creative Commons picture from the FAB, when the FAB clearly states "all rights reserved" on their website.
I prefer the Haiti picture: it kills two birds with one stone, showing Brazilian foreign policy in action through a military peackeeping mission.-- Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Option 1
![]() |
Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Option 1 | Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
Note: The previous picture also needed to be replaced due to fair use status.
Guys, we still need a tie-breaking vote here. lol. Seems people really had strong feelings on the others, but this one it's kinda "meh"...-- Dali-Llama 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
João Felipe C.S is doing vandalism in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says that no users can manipulate an article. He cannot stop us from editing in this article.
It is written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN
João Felipe C.S should be adiviced that he cannot reverte everyone's editis here. Opinoso 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is full protected for a month. Please, I have a request to all the users editing this article: try to reach a consensus. Regards, -- Carioca 02:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The main thing here is that NOTHING has been done against the user who is vandalizing this article. I am not here to cause an edit war, that is not my point. I am just trying to make contributions to this article.
Wikipedia is clear when it says users cannot manipulate an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN
João Felipe C.S is reverting my edits and other users' posts in the Brazil article for months. He thinks only he is able to make changes here.
In the past, the Brazil article used to be one of the most posted ones of Wikipedia. Users from all around the world were here making their contributions. Since João Felipe C.S started his manipulation, all the other users disappeared from this article. I was the only one who lasted here, because I think it is not fair that he came here and started to manipulate the article and destroyed it.
If, at least, he was doing a good job, it would be easier to accept. But he made the article become poor, with lots of unecessary images, trying to create the false idea that Brazil looks like Norway or Finland, as if Brazil was a First-World Northern European country. Brazil is a country full of contrasts, not a First-World nation as it seems to be when you look at this article.
It is abvious that he was trying to manipulate the article, because he listed himself among the Good Article Candidates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates
João Felipe C.S assumed by listing himself that he thinks he is the owner of the article. But he has never written anything for this article. He does not even have knowledge of the English language. So why does he feel free to control what is posted here? Why should he be the one to manipulate the article?
You people should tell him that he cannot manipulate an article as he has been doing for the last months. Other users and I want to be free to make good contributions for it. He cannot control what is posted here. Opinoso 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
João Felipe C.S is the one who is trying to fight here. I do not understand why some people obviously defend him. He was the one who started all this situation here, reverting my edits, because I have always been trying to show the reality of Brazil is this article, while he tries to hide the bad things of the country and create a fake Brazil, posting pictures of rich neighborhoods to represent Brazilian cities, erasing the pictures of favelas, posting pics of
blonde supermodels to represent the Brazilian population, erasing pictures of world-famous Brazilian beaches, posting pictures of museums and erasing Carnival ones. Since when a museum is culturally more representative of Brazil than the carnival?
João Felipe C.S tries to create a Brazilian that looks like Europe. But not a normal Europe. He tries to make a false Brazil that looks like the richest parts of Europe.
I know why João Felipe C.S tries to manipulate this article and is against my edits. When he started posting here, some months ago, he came with all those pictures of blond supermodels and erasing pictures that shows a Brazilian reality (poverty), he was reverted by many users. He, with a vandal sense, wrote in Portuguese: "Vocês não podem aceitar que um país de terceiro mundo se pareça com um de primeiro mundo""? (Can't you people accet that a Third-World country looks like a Firest-World country"?)
Since then, I have been observing what he was doing in Wikipedia: posting pictures of blonde models everywhere to represent Brazilians, vandalizing the Afro-Brazilian article, trying to diminish their numbers, inflating the numbers of White Brazilian ethnic groups with no sources, erasing pictures of favelas, posting pictures with parts of rich Brazilian cities and erasing poors ones (mostly Northeastern ones), posting lots of pics of Southern Brazil (he seems to be a regional nationalist), etc, etc.
The most incredible thing is that nobody seems to have seen that, only me. I tried to talk to him, but he was offensive and prefered to create an edit war in this article. All this posts seemed Racist, and it still does: when I posted pictures of Blacks and Brazilian Indians, he reverted me with no justification. When I posted a picture of a German-Brazilian city, he did nothing.
Dali-Llama, you acuse me of saying that nobody could change my edits. I never said that. After many months of João Felipe C.S's revertions' here with no justification (administrators again did not see that), I came here, after doing a big resouce, and post many informations in the article. Once again, João Felipe C.S reverted what I wrote. So I told him that he cannot do that, as I am saying now.
I ask Dali-Llama if he would feel happy if you dedicate months in an article (as I did in the Brazil) and, suddenly, an user comes, change it all (for worse) and starts to manipulate the article, reverting what you want to post. Do you think it is ethical?
The main thing is that the user cannot even write in English, I mean, he has never done any contribution in this article and feels free to manipulate it and what other people post here (most of the time he does not even understand what people post and revert it).
Dali-Llama, I am the only one who is complaining about his manipulation because the other users who used to post here have disappered since he got here. Maybe I am the only one who has been obersing what he has been doing all this time. You say we have to see only the content changes, but it became impossible, because João Felipe C.S made it be personal. Many time he went to "my contributions page" page and started to revert all the things I have been posted the last days. Many times he reverted over 3 times. Once again, no administrators saw that. Opinoso 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I will say what I think must be done, Opinoso.
List the changes you don't like and the changes you want to do, to make this article a better representation of Brazil.
Give the motives to each one. Don't attack anybody, don't talk about João, just about the article.
We will coment and try to reach a consensus. For "we", I mean anybody, everybody, whoever wants to opine.
The concept Wikipedia uses for this sittuation is negociation to reach a neutral stance, not judgment for decide who's "right". wildie· wilđ di¢e. wilł die 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with no reverts. I just don't like it, I just use it against vandalism.
What I want to be changed in this article are all those unnecessary pictures:
History session: There are no pictures of Historical Brazilian cities there. Brazil is full of wonderfull colonial towns, such as Ouro Preto, Olinda, Mariana, São João del-Rei, Parati, etc. The section needs more pictures. Getúlio Vargas's pic should be erased, there were more important presidents in Brazil. He was a dictator. The Portugal article does not have a picture of dictator António de Oliveira Salazar and the Chile one does not have one of Pinochet, why sould we?
Government and politics: I think the National Crongress picture should be erase and replaced by a beautiful picture of the Planalto Central in Brasília. It is much more representative than all those unknown politicians doing nothing there.
Law: The picture of both politicians should be erased. They are not so important to be in an article about Brazil. Many other Brazilians are more important to the country and are not in the article. It should be replaced with a of a Brazilian city court, maybe one from Brasilia.
Administrative divisions: This session talks about the Brazilian divisions and has no picturs of Brazilian cities. The session has almost no pictures of Northeastern cities. Why not put some there?
Geography and climate: Brazil is 90% tropical and world-famous for its beaches. There should have a picture of a Brazilian beach, maybe one from Rio de Janeiro.
Yes, Brazilian beaches are unique. Our beaches are world-famous and most Brazilians live along the coast. Again, a pic of a beach of Rio de Janeiro should be included. Opinoso 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Economy: São Paulo is the richest city of Brazil and there should have a picture of it. It is impossible to see the Itaipu picture, it is too dark. The pic of Bovespa is totally unnecessary. Why not replace it with a pic of an important Brazilian city, such as Belo Horizonte or Porto Alegre?
Demographics: This session has almost no pictures. There should be represented the ethnical diversity of Brazil: Whites, Blacks, Indians, Asians, Mixed-Race people. All those celebrity pictures should be erased. Celebrities do not represent a country's population demography.
Largest cities: The pictures seem out of place in the box. Maybe it would be better to put them out of it.
Languages: The picture of
Gramado has nothing to do with the session. Maybe it would be better to post a picture of a place that represents the Portuguese Language, such as the
Museum of the Portuguese Language of
São Paulo.
Social issues: Better pictures of poor Brazilian neighborhoods should be posted there.
Culture: It is impossible to talk about Brazilian culture and not to mention the
Brazilian Carnival or the
Samba. The
Niterói Contemporary Art Museum pic does not represent our culture in nothing.
Religion: The Pope visitation to Brazil's picture should be included. Brazil has the largest Roman Catholic population is the world.
Sports: A picture of a Brazil team soccer game should be included and also a pic of an important athlete should be posted, such as Ronaldinho Gaúcho.
Science and technology: I do not know if Marcos Pontes deserves a picture in the Brazil article. He seems to be more a Rede Globo's myth than a national hero. Other picture that really represents the national technology should replace it.
Well, these are my suggestions of changes in this article.
Comment them, please. Opinoso 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is way too long as has been said again and again on its FAC and GAC nominations. I think one of the causes of this problem is that it has too many sections: 18 not including see also, references and external links. It would be a good idea to check out the guidelines set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. They suggest just seven sections: History, Politics, Subdivisions, Geography, Economy, Demographics and Culture to which you could add Etymology. That would bring sections down from 18 to 8, all other topics should just be referred to in the "See also" section. What does everybody else thinks? -- Victor12 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, I'm declaring thread bankruptcy. I can't follow comments on a time-tag basis and I think we all agree that the article size needs to be reduced, and we have to roll up our sleeves and do it. Let's do this: Section by section, let's discuss what can be/has been cut, and its relocation to its own article. Let's adopt the following procedure (Feel free to ammend it):
"When removing content, a)summarize the change, b)explain the (ir)relevancy of the content removed c)indicate whether or not content was relocated to a sub-article. Sign individual changes (as we did in Opinoso's issues thread). If replying to a specific change (as opposed to adding your own), indent your comment under the specific change."-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Intro
1 Etymology
2 History
2.1 Colony
2.2 Empire
2.3 Republic Removed Operation Condor piece. Already mentioned in Operation Condor article. Deals with individual government action. Relocated to Fernando Henrique Cardoso Article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I think this section suffers from recentism, there's too much detail on the 1990s. The last two paragraphs could be reduced to just three sentences. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
3 Government and politics Removed: "On certain matters, the Executive and Judiciary authorities may have exclusive prerogatives for legislative initiative." (seems too detailed). And edited for brevity.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "Voting is also optional for
illiterate people". Again, too detailed.--
Dali-Llama
04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed "...as well as basic administrative conditions" I don't know what that means, to be honest. I don't know if it warrants inclusion elsewhere.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "A tax reform aiming at unifying the value-added tax in the country is currently being voted at the National Congress, and its approval and implementation are currently in the government policy agenda." That's old news and hasn't produced any actual results. Certainly an individual reform with little-to-no consequence shouldn't be in the main article with the space constraints we have.
Comment: I think the last paragraph should be deleted. It deals with economics, it does not belong under "Government and politics". -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
4 Foreign relations and the military Removed: "...and act at times as a countervailing force to U.S. political and economic influence in Latin America." Kind of already addressed in the Foreign relations of Brazil article, and certainly not as black-and-white as the sentence sounds.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "Both air divisions transferred their equipments, installations and personnel to the new armed force." Too detailed for this article and already addressed in the FAB article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: "...and as of July 8, 2005, had 66,020 personnel on active duty. An additional 7,500 civilian personnel are employed by the Air Force". It's a fluctuating number and addressed in the main FAB article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed: ", some American and British-built frigates, a few locally-built corvettes, coastal diesel-electric submarines and many other river and coastal patrol craft" Same rationale as above. We don't start talking about Tucanos and Mirages for the FAB: it's a never-ending spiral.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There's too much detail on foreign policy. That paragraph should be cut. All that comes after Brazil's current foreign policy is based on could be removed and transfered to Foreign relations of Brazil. As for the paragraph on the military, there's still some details that could be cut like the numer of aircraft, the mention of the São Paulo aircraft carrier or the strength of the Brazilian Army. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
5 Law
Comment: This section is way too long and its kind of redundant with the "Government" and "Administrative Divisions" sections. Useful content should go to those sections, the rest should be removed from this article. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
6 Administrative divisions
6.1 Regions Deleted subsection header: The whole section deals with regions so there's no point in having "Regions" as a header. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
6.2 States Deleted section. Hey, did anyone notice that the information in this section is replicated in the government/politics section? What isn't duplicated (the comarca thing), if far too detailed for inclusion in the main article. If so, then it doesn't follow to have one paragraph then a sub-section-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
7 Geography and climate
8 Environment
9 Economy Removed: "Brazil's diverse industries range from automobiles, steel and petrochemicals to computers, aircraft, and consumer goods and amount to one-third of the GDP." Already addressed at the top paragraph. How much of the GDP it consists can be left to the main article.-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The third and maybe the fifth paragraphs could be deleted without harming this section. They could be moved to Economy of Brazil if they are not already there. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I think the problem in this section is not size, but some mild POV. It puts too much emphasis on strengths of Brazil's economy in detriment of the problems. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
10 Demographics
10.1 Ethnic groups Comment: This section could be deleted, there's already an extensive section dealing with immigration and the ethnic groups that make up Brazil. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
10.2 Immigration and emigration Comment: This section could be deleted, too much detail for the country article. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
10.3 Largest cities
Comment: Does this need to be a separate section? -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: the whole intro talks about historical aspects of demographics. I think it can be relocated to a sub page. I also think we can keep the "ethnic groups" sub section as the main part of the section itself and save two or three paragraphs from immigration and emigration to add to that. "Largest cities" can go too. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
11 Languages Comment: Way too much detailed, could be reduced to a single paragraph. For instance the extensive description of Brazilian portuguese is irrelevant. A link to the proper subarticle would be enough. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
12 Education and health Comment: There's only a very small paragraph related to health, you might as well remove it and rename the section "Education". -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
13 Social issues
14 Culture Comment: Need urgently of references for this section. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
15 Religion Comment: Too much detail, the first paragraph would be enough. If people want more info they can go to the Religion in Brazil article. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
16 Sports
17 Science and technology
18 See also Comment: Too many templates. Only the first one should stay. -- Victor12 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
19 References
19.1 Footnotes
19.2 Further reading
20 External links
Minor changes include aligning pictures to the right per WP:MOS. I'm sorry if I've removed someone's edits (I'm sure I have), but this is one of those bold moments. Resist the temptation to press the revert button: make edits as you see fit, but try to address the changes individually. Let's roll-up those sleeves!-- Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The sections: "Religion", "Sports" and "Science and technology" possess ideal sizes. The other sections could have the same size. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Picture alignment RFC: According to the Manual of Style: Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes.
I I have implemented the policy, and shifted all pictures that are left-aligned at the beginning of the section to the right. Sections such as Economy, which have two pictures, I've alternated them left and right, with the first picture being aligned right. Felipe feels that this may not esthetically pleasing, even if according to policy. It's a fair point, though I disagree. What do others think?-- Dali-Llama 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally the users if had joined to improve the Brazil article. This is fantastic. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
1.Size: The article has been reduced to 85 Kb. Readable prose stands at 42 Kb.
2.Structure: It has been reorganized according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries standards - we now have only 8 sections: History, Politics, Administrative Divisions, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Culture, and Science and Technology.
3.Prose quality: There may still be one or two mistakes here and there, but I personally think prose quality is stable, accurate and good enough.
4.Images: I believe there is an adequate number of images and most or all of them are relevant and of very good quality.
5.References: There are 140+ references. I believe more than enough.
6.Neutrality: We've had a lot of problems with this in the past, but I think we've now reached a consensus on most subjects, although one or two users still try to hide certain things. In general, I think neutrality is passable.
7.Tables and Info boxes: They seem well organized to me.
I ask everyone: what else do we need to do here? Are we ready for a convincing GA nomination? If you think there are things still requiring our attention, by all means feel free to list them here! Sparks1979 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, congratulations everyone on managing this reduction without edit wars or excessive personal attacks. I think the most emotionally charged thing in wikipedia is removal of content (God knows what I've gone through reviewing articles for deletion), so I'm pleasantly shocked that this has gone so well.-- Dali-Llama 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as being ready for GA, let's look directly at the criteria from WP:GA?:
1)Well written?
2)Factually accurate?
3)Broad coverage?
4)NPOV?
5)Stable?
6)Images?
Conclusion:
Comment: Good job everyone! Prose has been brought down to a more manageable size and in quite a short time I must say. It's good to see the article has so many interested editors willing to help. Having said that, here are some suggestions for further improvement:
The aforementioned subsection has seen a lot of activity in the last few days, and it has been the center of controversy between myself and another user.
I made an expansion that in my eyes matches what users have been calling for in many of our past debates. I made brief mentions to general social problems any Brazilian is aware of. So which problems did I mention?
Well, I didn’t add this simply because I felt like it. I added it because in past discussions (check archived debates), several users complained about the lack of mention to problems in Brazil's article. People complained the article was full of POV, that no social problems such as violence or other issues was ever mentioned or discussed. Users complained dirt was pushed under the carpet. I have a neutral opinion. I’m not in favor of a negative view of the country. Brazil is an economical powerhouse. That’s undeniable – the country has one of the largest GDPs in the world. In the other hand, social problems in Brazil can be quite dramatic. We all know Brazil is a country of contrasts. So I think a neutral view should present both sides – the economical power and the social and institutional shortcomings. Brazil is not a Banana Republic, but it is very far from development in social terms.
If you think social issues shouldn’t be mentioned, fine, but at least explain why. Two arguments have been mentioned, but they are quite lousy:
Currently the social issues subsection only mentions poverty. I wrote a brief mention to all the other problems in a short 4 line paragraph, but that seemed to bother some people. So what do other people think? I’m trying to be democratic about this. If people don’t reply, I will just keep adding the information back every time I visit the page, but if people decide this type of data should be inserted in a sub page, I will have no problem with that either. I don’t force my personal opinions on other people, but if people don’t bother saying what they think, I will just have to proceed according to my own personal thoughts. I will be back to check this in about two days. Sparks1979 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've read the previous discussion and this one as well. To be perfectly honest, I think that the social issues brought up by Sparks should in fact be mentioned. The section is important: the issue is really how it's approached. Country articles have a bad habit of being overly positive about their subjects as most people hesitate to denigrate their homeland in front of foreigners (though we do so freely at home, admit it!).
At the same time, while this is a necessary section, it is also an WP:OR and WP:NPOV minefield. Finally, I think the article needs the section more than some of the existing information currently there. So this is the compromise I propose:
Sparks, write up how you think the social issues section should look like, and make sure the sources are beyond reproach and as quantitative as possible. At the same time, if the proposal is larger than the existing blurb, indicate where you think the article could lose more content to make up for an increase in social issues. Right now we need some form of wiki- fiscal responsibility, where for content that we'd like to add, we need to remove it elsewhere. After we have a proposal to look at, we'll all pitch in to take a look and see if it meets OR, RS and NPOV rules. As I said, I think this is a terribly important section, but there are several "landmines" to avoid in drafting it.-- Dali-Llama 21:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the layout of the article still can be improved. I am working in a model here. When to finish, I will present here in talk page and we could make a voting. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I finished the model. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
* The lead section seems mostly good. However, it should be a summary of the article, and as such, should not contain reference citations (the citations should be in the article text itself). Editors might also want to check out the last paragraph of the lead. Why does "throughout the 90s" have a citation on it? the reference should be at the end of the sentence. This last paragraph could probably be rewritten to provide just a mere summary of the economy as a whole, don't start out by mentioning its recent economic revolution.
* In the 'history: empire' section: "It specified indirect elections and created the usual three branches of government ..."; while I can guess that the editors are talking about the legislative, executive and judicial, I don't think it's wise to let the reader guess at this. Every nation is different.
* Write out the names of each political party mentioned here: "Four political parties stand out among several small ones: PT, PSDB, PMDB and DEM, formerly PFL." The abbreviations are pretty much meaningless to someone that is not from Brazil, and few people will want to click on each link just to find out what they mean. Done
Carlosguitar
08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* The 'politics' section really talks more about the organization of the government rather than the political landscape. This section should be called 'government', with a brief mention of the political parties. Change the link to the
Politics of Brazil article from a 'main article:' link to a 'see also:' link, to somewhat de-emphasize that the section is about politics and in fact, more about government. The two subsections here also seem to be concerned with various parts and/or functions of government, rather than politics.
* "Major rivers include the Amazon, the largest river in the world in flowing water volume,..." -- remove the word 'flowing', maybe change to "in terms of volume of water". Done
Carlosguitar
08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* "Most of Brazil has moderate rainfall of between 1,000 and 1,500 millimeters a year" -- Is there some reason why the measurement is not indicated in cm (100-150 cm)? It is general practice that you should use the unit of measurement that produces the lowest quantity (e.g. instead of writing 1,000 m, you write 1 km). There's a couple of other measurements in the 'climate' section like this to check out as well.
* Also, regarding units of measurement, it would be nice if the non-metric equivalents were provided in parentheses for readers not familiar with the metric system (but please don't blame me for the fact that
my country) won't adopt the superior metric system. At the very least, though, temperatures in both Celsius & Fahrenheit should be provided, since °F is a bit more common.
* In the second paragraph of the 'environment' section, the phrase "country of the world" seems to be repeated twice in two successive sentences, which makes for awkward reading. I would change the wording to only use that phrase once. There is also a comma after the second sentence, where I think a period was intended. I am not sure why the word 'quick' is in parentheses in the third paragraph? It doesn't seem to be needed here -- perhaps remove it.
* "Possessing large and well-developed agricultural, mining, manufacturing,[90] and service sectors, as well as a large labour pool, Brazil's GDP (PPP) is the highest of Latin America becoming the core economy of Mercosul." -- This first sentence in the economy section seems kind of awkward, and mainly a run-on sentence. Starting with "Possessing large and well-developed" seems to be a weird beginning, and the last part seems to run-on,... rephrase.
* This sentence really needs to be sourced: "According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP) and tenth largest at market exchange rates."
* Perhaps a wikilink to the
Brazilian real article in the economy section would help for those interested in learning more about the currency? Likewise, since the dollar is mentioned, link to the
United States Dollar article as well.
* "The largest Brazilian cities are: São Paulo with 11.0 millions,..." -- In this sentence, the proper form would be "11.0 million" (million is written as singular, not plural). Ditto for the other two mentions of the word.
* In the 'education and health section', single years should not be wikilinked.
* "Diplomas and certificates are proof of having passed through higher education." -- this rather broad sentence could probably be removed; it's not unique to Brazil, and it sounds like something
Ric Romero might write.
* Brazilian annalists? Are you sure you got this spelling right? The 'education and health' section mostly contains education, with a single sentence devoted to health issues. I think education itself fails into a pretty broad enough category that it should be in its own main section, rather than a subsection of 'demographics'. More information can be written about health care, which probably should make it into its own section. Does Brazil have socialized health care? What are some of the major hospitals? How does health care in Brazil rate to other nations?
* [Social issues] "Some social and political issues that plague other countries are either mild or practically non-existent problems in Brazil." -- this unsourced sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. What social and political issues and what countries are you referring to? I'm not sure that it's really important, and sounds more like filler that was added to make Brazil sound better compared to other countries. It could probably be eliminated.
* Mention of the Brazilian Space Agency is good. It might be nice to elaborate on some of the agencies accomplishments, however.
* Eliminate the 'see also' section and move the 'Major topics in Brazil' template to the bottom of the article. Done
Carlosguitar
09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* Remove the 'footnotes' subheading in the 'references' section, and change 'further reading' to a level 2 heading (main section). Done
Carlosguitar
09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
* Make sure that any URLs used as references have dates of retrieval included in them. All references, even websites, should contain full information (author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date of retrieval). See
WP:CITE for more information on formatting reference citations.
* There seems to be an overall inconsistency in the placement of inline citations in the article. The citation should be placed at the end of each sentence, immediately AFTER the punctuation mark, not before it, and not after the punctuation mark and after a space. Multiple references attached to the same sentence should be placed one after the other, with no space in between. I can let a couple of these slide for GA status, as it's less important, but there seems to be a pretty large amount of inconsistent references in the article that I thought worth mentioning.
I think this article is mostly there in terms of the
GA criteria, although there's still several issues that remain. The prose it mostly good, with a couple of minor issues, mostly little grammatical ones that a good copyedit can fix (criterion 1). It is sufficiently referenced, and broad, meeting criteria 2 & 3. I think it's mostly
NPOV (criterion 4). I am a little concerned regarding its stability (5), due to the recent edit war of about a week ago. The only image that I really see a problem with is the one of the airplane in the technology section; it is copyrighted, and if used, needs a fair use rationale added to its description.
While I am sort of on the fence about failing this article, due to the amount of changes required, considering its recent GA nomination history, and the fact that there appears to be a good amount of editors actively working on it, I am going to place it on hold at
WP:GAC, pending revision, for a period of 7 days. At the end of this period, I'll revisit the article and promote it, if the issues have been addressed. If they haven't, I'll fail it (an extension may be in order if I see a lot of progress). But if there is a lot of reverting going on in the next week, it'll fail due to
criterion 5. Cheers!
Dr. Cash
05:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
On issues mentioned in concluding remarks:
Done Replaced non-free image of Embraer jetliner with free alternative illustrating same conclusion.--
Dali-Llama
17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
At first glance, the article is a big improvement. I'm going to go over it again in the next couple of days, plus I'd like a few more days just to make sure the article meets the stability criteria (the racism accusations in the section after this review make me a bit weary that the article could still have stability issues, so I just want to make sure.
Also, I still think that a section right before 'history' called 'name' could help. Move that first paragraph in the history section to it, and add the pronunciation information that's currently in reference #1 there. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The latest vandalism of João Felipe C.s was against humanity. His picture about Brazilian people separated people considering their skin colour. Blacks are located at the bottom, blondes at the top.
Everyone should know that Brazilians are all the same, there is no such thing as a 100% white or black Brazilian. That is the latest work of our dear João Felipe C.s., the man who knows this country better than anyone else.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KREATOR OF BO ( talk • contribs).
I sincerely hope this isn't Opinoso with a sockpuppet.-- Dali-Llama 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Dali-Llama, are you really acusing me of attacking João Felipe C.S with another user name? You have to prove what you are saying. This is not how a real administrator should act.
I do not need to log in another user to say what I want.
By the way, I do not know why you keep protecting João Felipe C.S from his abuses in the Wikipedia. Maybe it is because you agree with all his deliriums that Brazil is a copy of Germany.
It is obvious that I am not the only one who has been observing all that. Those pictures of celebrities are horrible. I agree with the user who says that the Black ones are under the White ones.
Why are the Blacks representated by ugly people, such as Ronaldinho, Benedita da Silva and Pelé, and the blonds with Supermodels such as Ana Hickmann and Gisele Bündchen? Why not try to find pictures of Taís Araújo or Camila Pitanga to represent the Black-Brazilian beauty too?
I think that if we want to represent the Brazilian people, we must post pictures of unknown persons, not supermodels or celebrities. Where are pics of mixed-race people, who do represent the majority of Brazilians?
Do you really think that an ordinary blond Brazilian looks like Ana Hickmann? Not even in Finland people look as blond as she is.
By the way, why does João Felipe C.S keep erasing the day-light picture of the Favela and posting the dark one? It is because he wants to hide it, because he is into his fantasy that Brazil looks like Germany, with blond girls and First-World cities.
These article's pictures are all fantasies inside your minds. The real Brazil is totally different from that.
Comment: Dali-Llama, I am waiting for you to prove that I am using another user name in this discussion. Opinoso 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we're back to deciding which pictures to post. -- Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are the candidates, divided per section:
Note: all pictures are from the commons, so our choices do not affect the GA process.
Option 1
![]() |
Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Note: The previous picture, the Mirage 2000 one, is not properly tagged, so it needed to be replaced (it was supposedly a Creative Commons picture from the FAB, when the FAB clearly states "all rights reserved" on their website.
I prefer the Haiti picture: it kills two birds with one stone, showing Brazilian foreign policy in action through a military peackeeping mission.-- Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Option 1
![]() |
Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
Option 1 | Option 2 |
---|---|
![]() |
Note: The previous picture also needed to be replaced due to fair use status.
Guys, we still need a tie-breaking vote here. lol. Seems people really had strong feelings on the others, but this one it's kinda "meh"...-- Dali-Llama 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)