Template:Did you know nominations/Engenho dos Erasmos

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Engenho dos Erasmos

(

)

The ruins in 2019

... that the Engenho dos Erasmos, built in Colonial Brazil in 1534 to produce sugar cane, was attacked by pirates in 1591 and 1615?
- ALT1: ... that the Engenho dos Erasmos, constructed in 1534, was the third engenho to be built in Colonial Brazil to produce sugar cane?
- ALT1a: ... that the Engenho dos Erasmos, constructed around 1534, was the third engenho to be built in Colonial Brazil to produce sugar cane?
- ALT2 ... that the Engenho dos Erasmos, built in Colonial Brazil around 1534 to produce sugar cane, was attacked by the English in 1591 and the Dutch in 1615?

Reviewed: ~~QPQ to come~~ Kamchatka meteor

5x expanded by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 01:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC).

Ahem, there is no mention of pirates in the article, perhaps because Brazil was at war with the English in 1590 and with the Dutch in 1615. See Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), Eighty Years' War, and Iberian Union. Other than that, the expansion is good, and comfortably within time, and I have seen no other issues. Please ping me when this problem with the hook has been sorted. Moonraker (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what the right word is here - corsair perhaps? It's about the attacks by Thomas Cavendish and Joris van Spilbergen, mentioned at the end of the first section. I've also put an ALT1 hook proposal in case that's better. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel, on the first hook, it's clear which attacks it refers to, but you are missing the point that these were acts of war, on behalf of enemy states, the Kingdom of England and the Dutch Republic. On Alt1, we can't say "constructed in 1534", because your source qualifies that with "provavelmente". Maybe you could re-word one or the other? Moonraker (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moonraker: How's ALT1a? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel, what your source says is that there are disagreements about the date of construction, but two named men "acreditam que o Engenho dos Erasmos foi o terceiro empreendimento desse tipo a ser construído na região." The word "acreditam" means "believe" and isn't nailing it enough to say bluntly "was the third", so perhaps you would like to correct "was the third such mill to be set up in Brazil" in the article? (You will need to take a view on whether "região" means the whole of Brazil.) We could use that source to say in a hook "may have been the third", but this is vague, when there are some actual cited facts. I could live with the first hook, if you were to say "around 1534" instead of "in 1534" and "the English in 1591 and the Dutch in 1615", instead of referring to "pirates". Moonraker (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moonraker: Apologies for the slow reply, it's been a busy week. I've caveated the article, and added ALT2 above, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ:
Overall: Five times expanded within time. All other points check out for ALT2, apart from the QPQ. Could we please have one? Moonraker (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moonraker: Apologies again for the slow reply. The QPQ is now done at Template:Did you know nominations/Kamchatka meteor. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: As above, but now marking QPQ as done. NB, only ALT2 passes the checks. Moonraker (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)