Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Brazilian military junta of 1930

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Brazilian military junta of 1930

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): FredModulars (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-class review because I believe it satisfies the A-class criteria. It is about the military junta which ruled Brazil between the deposition of President Washington Luís and the ascension of Getúlio Vargas to the presidency at the end of the Revolution of 1930. While the junta is essentially just a footnote in history, it shouldn't be forgotten as the pacifying body which ended further bloodshed and put the nail in the coffin for Luís. It received its GA review in September and a copyedit this month. FredModulars (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

No issues now but please do not upload images with contradictory licensing like you did here. If the source claims CC licensing it's safer to rely on that rather than assume it's public domain, which would depend on the publication date. (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks. When I first uploaded the images, I had to rely on the date and assume it was public domain, which is why this specific one went unused because I couldn't prove it was PD in the US or even Brazil. When I realized today that the Legislative Assembly of Sao Paulo uploads all their images under CC licensing, I changed a few images to the CC licensing but forgot to remove the PD licensing I originally put. Sorry about that. FredModulars (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

Part I

Nice work on the article. Following are few suggestions:

First Brazilian Republic is linked twice in the lead.
~~I can't seem to find the second link.~~ Removed the first link. I think the second link is more appropriate (also since "Brazil" wasn't exactly the First Brazilian Republic when they governed it).
"when President Washington Luís" — try to avoid linking two adjacent words together. More importantly, do we need a link to 'President' here, when 'presidency' in the immediately previous line was un-linked?
Removed the link to President.
Getúlio Vargas is linked twice in the lead.
Removed the second link.
"the Alliance" — I'm not sure why this is capitalised.
Changed to "the alliance"
"and José Isaías de Noronha decided" — our article calls him just 'Isaías de Noronha'. Why is full name used here?
I've checked most of the sources and they use the abbreviated Isaías de Noronha, so I've changed it to that.
"but acquiesced to" — a complicated word there for casual readers ... Suggesting to replace with an simpler one. Feel free to ignore this suggestion, though.
I'm not sure if another word would convey the same meaning, though I have tried to reword the sentence to accommodate this: "...but negotiated with revolutionaries to transfer power to Vargas on 3 November 1930 after his arrival in the capital."
"after they arrived in the capital." — why not just write "after they arrived in Rio de Janeiro."
Changed to Rio de Janeiro.
"nominated another man from the same state, Júlio Prestes, as his successor" → "nominated Júlio Prestes, another man from the same state, as his successor"
Changed.
"Their plans would include agricultural schools" — why 'would include' rather than ~~'including'~~
Not sure how that would fit unless the sentence was reworded. "Their plans including agricultural schools."
Ah, sorry. I meant "Their plans included agriculture ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to included.
"many of their promises would be realized after Vargas took power in 1930" — I don't understand this. How can promises be realized after someone taking office.
Their plans would be executed after Vargas took power, though we might be thinking of different definitions of realized.
"and in the National Congress Rio Grande do Sul" — comma after 'National Congress'
Done.
'Rio Grande do Sul' is over-linked in the 'Background' section.
I see two, I have removed the second link. If there are more, please tell me and I'll remove them.
" the Democratic Party (PD)," — why is abbreviation defined when it is never used again in the article?
Not sure, and it confuses the reader since it's a Portuguese abbreviation. Removed.
"the popular Cardinal Sebastião Leme" — WP:SOB
Removed the link to Cardinal.
""What! Then Your Eminence doubts" — is the capitalization done in the source as well?
Yes.
Will continue with 'The junta' section.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part II

Continuing:

We have both 'first' and '1st' used in the prose.
The only time I see "1st" is in the 1st Military Region. That is an actual military organization, and 1st should be used here.
Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and, just from their faces, it became clear the president's position was untenable." — this either needs to be removed, or needs attribution as to who believes it. It reads a bit like a news article to me.
Removed "just from their faces."
"The president" — can we replace it by "Luís"
Done.
""Only in pieces I leave here," Luís said to his ministers." — I don't know if there any MOS guideline, but we shouldn't be starting a sentence by a quote ...
Changed.
"in a firm and dry tone" — is it important to mention this poetic detail? Upto you ...
Not really. Removed.
"to violence.^[22]^[16]^[24]" — Ref#16 should be before Ref#22
"in the capital.^[31]^[18]" — same as above
"a new government.^[34]^[18]^[26]^[32]" — same as above
"the same day.^[24]^[36]^[34]^[31]" — same as above
Rearranged (all above).
In the 'Government' section, I feel that the table takes a lot of place, making it difficult to read the adjacent text. Can we center align it at the end of this section?
Done, thanks for this suggestion. It looks a lot better now.
"Tasso Fragoso, head of the junta" — his being head is mentioned before
I'm not sure if you're referring to Tasso Fragoso's role in heading the military coup, how he was the main person conversing with Luis, or mention of him being head in the coup. Either way, it hasn't yet been established (in the body) that he was head of the junta.
"Bahia's capital" — pipe " 's " out of the link
Done.
"Skidmore, Thomas E. (2010). Brazil: Five Centuries of Change (2º ed.). United States: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537455-1." — There is no link pointing to this citation.
Some of the text was incorporated from 1930 Brazilian coup d'état when it was merged into Brazilian Revolution of 1930 and this article. Some sources were carried over, but this was never used. Removed.
"New York, New York" — the former should be "New York City", also, why isn't it linked?
Changed to New York City. See the last ref (#44), it is used once in "Aftermath and legacy."
I meant, shouldn't we link New York City? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked.
Some information about how this junta affected the Brazilian military junta of 1969 would be nice.
These two bodies are entirely independent. Both were military triumvirates, one navy and two army representatives, forcefully removing one president, and stopping another from assuming office. The correlation, however, doesn't equal causation. If you'd think it would help, I could add something along the lines of, "In 1969, another military junta assumed power under similar circumstances of the 1930 junta." I'm not sure it would be necessary, though.
I'd expect at-least a mention that another junta happened 39 years later. Upto you though, how you put it. Also, this suggestion is entirely optional. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd like to do it, it would be neglecting the "junta" that acted during the Campanha da Legalidade and the other short-lived one right after the 1964 coup, both not official "presidents" but still juntas. The 1930 junta and the ones of the 1960s are disconnected, and one has nothing to do with the other. Sorry, but I think it would better be left out.
Fine, no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks. Your concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article for promotion. Great work! Expecting to see this at FAC! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. FredModulars (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

Is it known why Luis broke with the tradition of the rotating presidency with Minas Gerais?
Yes. Added
It might be beneficial to mention what Prestes was advocating for after the Liberal Alliance's platform is explained.
Added.
Pessoa's death was the spark that led the opposition to take up arms. Remove "was the spark that".
Changed to "Pessoa's death was the catalyst that led the opposition to take up arms."
and renewed part of the military commands. What does this mean?
Tried to clarify it: "and replaced some military commanders."
Is it known how Luis' removal and the installation of the Junta was received outside of Rio de Janeiro and the provinces controlled by the revolutionaries? Similarly, did the international community have time to react and did it have a response to the events?
The reaction by revolutionaries is detailed in "Government," which is the only reaction I could find. I remember reading some limited correspondence between US diplomats in the "Office of the Historian" for the US Department of State. I will see if there is anything worth mentioning, for much of it was tied to Vargas, revolutionaries, and the government.

I was able to find a statement made by the foreign minister that was sent by the US Ambassador to Brazil to the Secretary of State, but nothing else. There is information regarding the United States's, Great Britain's, and other South American countries' recognition of the provisional government of President Vargas, but nothing relating to the junta.
Ok, good to see what the junta's position was officially regarding foreign relations. I'm surprised that there isn't more to be found about Brazilian reaction to the coup aside from Rio de Janeiro and the revolutionaries. Though, I suppose this all happened very quickly. Supporting promotion, though I suggest you expand reactions if you find the material with which to do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and support. I'll try to take a deeper look into this, though I am unsure if I will be able to find much reaction from the other Brazilian states since they do not receive much attention in history, especially during the Vargas Era. FredModulars (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See if you can add publishing locations for all book sources, if possible.
Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Will review this one soon; ping me if I forget to get around to it. Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This oligarchy, between Minas Gerais and São Paulo," - it wouldn't hurt to clarify that these are the two states - when it talks about Minas Gerais doing something in the sentence, it was easy to assume that it was a person not a location
Clarified: "This oligarchy, between politicians from the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo..."
Do RS state if Pessoa was assassinated on government orders?
He was not. Clarified the motive for the assassination.
Dry powder doesn't seem to be a familiar term. Is this a way to refer to blank rounds?
Yes, I believe so; changed to blank rounds.
Why was de Moura unpopular?
Added why: "...who was appointed by the junta, was unpopular because Moura had commanded federal forces fighting rebels in the Paraná–São Paulo area."
I believe the non-English sources should indicate in parameters the languages that they are in.
Done. FredModulars (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't give much more than a prose review here, as I don't speak or read Portuguese and am not familiar with Brazilian history, but nothing really stood out to me as problematic. Hog Farm _Talk 06:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Hawkeye7 - pass

Removed some warnings, standardised ISBN format
Sources are high quality
Not familiar with Brazil or Portuguese either (although I've been there)
fn 29, 30: 30 has "moderating power" but 29 says "pacifying junta" not "pacification junta".
That's my bad. I probably confused it with a source (Dulles) which refers to the junta as the Junta Pacificadora. Changed to "pacifying."
fn 35, 45: okay
fn 47: Cannot find this on p. 53; please re-check
I believe it is there: "Although Vargas was increasing his support among senior professional officers - Tasso Fragoso became Chief of Staff..." on page 53, Bourne. FredModulars (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fine - passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the source review, Hawkeye. FredModulars (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.