Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil/archive4

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Brazil edit

Nominator(s): VitorAzBine (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazil article exemplifies one of the best country articles on Wikipedia and deserves to be featured. If you are unsure, you are welcome to check other featured country articles, such as China, India, Australia, South Africa, and United States, and maybe Singapore to get an idea of how the Brazil article compares. If you object, please state explicitly why you object (no bias or personal opinions, like mentioning the article should be expanded or reduced, which not everyone agrees. Personal opinions also include reorganizing the sections or anything related. These should be put into the discussion page instead). Thank you. VitorAzBine (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The nominator's statement is not very encouraging. There are a lot of tags indicating the article has issues, such as missing citations, dead links, etc. --Rs chen 7754 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even at first glance, there are basic issues, such as the unresolved tags and dead links mentioned above, and an incorrectly capitalised heading. These may well be fixable, but the defensive tone of the nomination is likely to deter editors from engaging with this article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One should fix tags, and double check the sources (i.e. dead links) before coming to FAC. The article has some merits, but have to agree with other comments that the nominations tone is combative. FAC aims at improving articles with that last-stage polishing of already great material, it is not an arena for mortal combat. Check the tags, check the attitude, then come back. Not now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, more or less per ColonelHenry. I should also add that the number of one-sentence paragraphs do not make for good reading. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone edit

Agree with comments above. A few specifics:

Many, many facts lacking citations. I know this article has a lot of references, but it needs more.
Some of the references are incomplete, such as footnotes 322, 326, and there is a host of footnote formatting issues (eg. is "page" going to be capitalised or not, abbreviated or not, when are cited sources going to be cited using Harvard and then listed in the bibliography, inconsistent formats of retrieval dates etc etc)
Environment: source quality and neutrality issues. Greenpeace are not high quality or reliable source for claims in an FA on a major nation state that "mines have scarred and polluted the landscape".
System of government: the article does not say how many representatives are elected to Congress, nor how often elections are held.
The section on the economy needs serious work. The subsection on tourism is ridiculously long, and it is odd that there is a subsection of "economy" regarding tourism, yet no subsection on other parts of the economy that are more important. Where is the subsection on mining? On manufacturing?
The education section is particularly weak. Reading it, I cannot tell any basic details such as: what is the structure of schooling as regards age of children; how many years of schooling are undertaken; to what age is it compulsory, if at all; what proportion of students are educated in publicly-run schools; is there a technical or vocational post-school education system at all; etc. The final paragraph is ungrammatical, unreferenced, and lacking in useful information.
The section on music mentions no individuals. I know these things are hard to weigh up, but i would have thought a few would warrant mention because of their international reputations and significance - the two that come to my mind are Heitor Villa-Lobos and João Gilberto.
Why are "sports" a subheading of the National holidays section?
Many sections of the article are in need of an intensive copyedit, with many sentences using broken English or unusual expressions (eg. "For most of its democratic history, Brazil has had a multi-party system, proportional representation".

Not ready for FAC I would have thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments -- Per above, I'll be archiving this nomination shortly. Pls take the comments on board and note that, per FAC instructions, there's a two-week minimum waiting period between an article being archived and the nominator bringing another (or the same one) here. Remember also that a little humility at FAC never goes astray. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.