Talk:1937 Brazilian coup d'état/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 19:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be well-written and sourced. I'll review it soon. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that. Thanks for taking up the review. FredModulars (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My initial commentaries:

Lead

The opening of the article "A military coup, known as the 1937 coup (Portuguese: Golpe de 1937) or the Estado Novo coup (Portuguese: Golpe do Estado Novo), was initiated on 10 November 1937 in Brazil by President Getúlio Vargas with the support of the Brazilian Armed Forces." seems a little strange. First, why do you say it was "initiated on 10 November 1937"? Initiated means it probably ended another day (which is not the case considering only the coup itself). "Done" or "occured" would be better words to use. Also, the title of the article probably should have some highlight like this: "The 1937 Brazilian coup d'état, known as the 1937 coup (Portuguese: Golpe de 1937) or the Estado Novo coup (Portuguese: Golpe do Estado Novo), was a military coup lead by President Getúlio Vargas with the support of the Brazilian Armed Forces on 10 November 1937"

Fixed.

"Vargas had risen to power in a revolution..." don't mention actual dates. It may be rewritten as "Vargas had risen to power in 1930 through a revolution..." or "Vargas had risen to power through the 1930 revolution..."

Fixed, though I thought leaving out the dates would be better to just focus on the key points of pre-coup events.

"Under a new 1934 constitution" will be unnecessary after "1930" is mentioned since the text says he ruled for four years.

Done.

You use both "Estado Novo" and "Estado Nôvo" in the article. At the opening line you use the first but in the rest of the article you use the latter. According to the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990, the first form is the correct. But probably your sources use predominantly the second form because they are pre-Ortographic Agreement or they preferred to use the contemporary spelling.

The source I saw the first version from was a source after the reform. I changed all to "Novo."

"Germany and Italy rejoiced with some exceptions with the former". Not clear to me. Try to reword it. Perhaps "Germany and Italy rejoiced with it, although there was some suspicion by the former", if I understand it correctly.

Fixed.

Background

"The First Brazilian Republic (1889–1930) came to an end in 1930 at the hands of the Revolution of 1930". It repeats excessively "1930". Try something like "The First Brazilian Republic, started in 1889, came to an end at the hands of the Revolution of 1930".

Revised.

"... was now being undermined by an economic crisis"; per WP:EASTER and to be precise, it would be better to write it as "... undermined by the 1929 economic crisis" or "by the Wall Street Crash of 1929".

Fixed.

"The coffee and milk oligarchy collapsed in it of itself". First, is "coffee and milk" used interchangeably with "coffee with milk" by your sources? If yes, keep it this way. If not, I think you should be consistent. Second, it should be "collapsed in on itself", not "in it of itself".

Replaced with "and." "Coffee and milk" and "coffee with milk" aren't used interchangeably. I used "with" only because of the article linked and left it like that in "further information."

You don't need to wiklink "an armed revolution" in "prompted Vargas and supporters to initiate an armed revolution" since the revolution is already linked at the opening of the paragraph; see MOS:OVERLINK.

Link removed.

"A civil war was briefly instigated for three months from 9 July to 2 October 1932 when the paulistas staged a revolution – the Constitutionalist Revolution". To avoid the repetition of "revolution", I would suggest a synonym like "uprising" or "revolt"

Replaced with insurrection.

"For instance, the National Commission for Stopping Communism (or the National Commission for the Repression of Communism)". Why there's two names for the comission? In Portuguese, the correct name is clearly the second.

Each source uses a different name. I would assume it was a translation error.

I see you use Portuguese abbreviations, but it will not be that intuitive for English-speaking readers to know "TSN" is short for "National Security Tribunal", will it? Maybe you should add a note like you did for "PCB" or simply add "(TSN)" after "National Security Tribunal".

Added a note.

"Congress declared a ninety-day state of war in December and extended it five times; Congress now refused to prolong the state of war." "Now" is referring to when? Be precise and have in mind that "now" is not the better word for historical past.

Fixed.

"... support for 'a strong state, dictatorial solution for Brazil's evils.' as Bourne says". Probably it should be a comma instead of the period after "evils", right?

Revised.

"... and the political climate was reverted to the lead-up of the Revolution of 1930". Not clear what it is supposed to mean. Explain it better or remove it altogether.

I elaborated a bit on it. Hope it makes sense now.

"The plan failed, though Magalhães's political future, as well as Cavalcanti's who had agreed to the plan, was now to be in ruins". The same. And Magalhães is no more cited through the article, so it seems very strange to simply say something vague about him but not to conclude it.

Fixed.

Why do you think "The Brazilian Integralist Action party" is worth an entire separated explanatory box and not the other candidate's parties? I'm not against it a priori, but it seems a bit dislocated.

The AIB had a strong influence on the military and the coup, similar to the influence communists had though in a different way. I thought it would be better to explain the AIB. It is more likely someone knows what a communist is rather than the Brazilian Integralist Action Party.

Preparation

"The oganizers of the coup". Typo of "organizers".

Corrected.

What's the reasoning for using "On 29 September" in the body and "Or 30 September" in the note? Why don't you use both on body and discuss the divergent dates's reasoning in the note?

Conflicting sources. Two use 30, one uses 29, and one says "the following day" after describing events that unfolded on 28 September. I revised it to 30 September instead since the ones which use 30 are more recent.

"... and a potential variation on Béla Kun, the Jewish-Hungarian communist"; why "the Jewish-Hungarian communist", not "a"? Probably "a" is better since Bela Kun is not the (only or best example of) Jewish-Hungarian communist, but simply a Jewish-Hungarian communist. "The" would be appropriate if you are referring to him as "the Jewish leader of communist Hungary" or something like that.

Fixed the article.

"When the state of war commission demanded the state militia be incorporated" → "When the state of war commission demanded the state militia to be incorporated"

Done.

Why is Bahia first linked here, not previously?

Not sure to be honest. Fixed.

"Negrao de Lima" is not correct in Portuguese; it should be "Negrão"

My bad. I was going to but forgot to add the accent.

"There was near unanimous consent for the it" → "for it" or "for the coup" probably

Accident, sorry.

"A week before the coup (3 November), there was a commemoration for Vargas's ..." → "a commemoration of Vargas's ..."

Fixed.

Execution

Nothing to say.

Aftermath

"... gaining it the nickname 'a polaca'"; although Poland is mentioned earlier in the sentence, I'm not sure it's totally clear to English-speaking audiences that "polaca" means "Polish". I think it would be good to be more explicit.

Done.

"With the new period, Vargas ruled as dictator, and his term ended up finishing only on 29 October 1945". Not sure if "With the new period" makes sense

Clarified.

"Precedents that began during the new period remained in Brazilian politics for many years to come": the same problem + what precedents? Can you give any examples?

I hope I didn't just create a similar problem, but I edited it to the language of the source (trends + developments).

Per MOS:N'T you must not write "Vargas wasn't able to reach consent for a third candidate..." but "Vargas was not able..."

Fixed.

"The New York Post and the Daily Worker condemed the neutrality of the United States Department of State" → "condemned"

Fixed, sorry for all the typos.

The link to another subsection in the article is not necessary in "Radio and press in Uruguay, the place of Cunha's exile (see Build up: October) and favorable to the ex-Governor"

Done.

FredModulars, ping me once you do the required changes or in case of any disagreement, doubts, replies, etc. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin working down the list soon. Thank you! FredModulars (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Yuji I believe I have covered everything you have pointed out so far FredModulars (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FredModulars Very good overall. I still have two concerns that may be me being nitpick. First, about the bit "reverted the political climate to the lead-up of the 1930 revolution". I still don't get it and I'm familiar with Brazilian history. My main concern is that a lay reader probably can't understand it, too. How "Almeida's increasing shift to the left only complicated the situation, and his attempts to satisfy a working-class electorate" reverted the situation to pre-1930? Was there any leftist candidate similar to Almeida that increased the political tension? Because the economic crisis and decline of old oligarchies doesn't seem similar to me. Or the similarity is about other aspect? Are you just referring to a certain political instability climate?

The second thing: I see you changed "Precedents" for "Trends and developments". Anyway, my doubt is still there: what trends and devolopments then? How they remained within Brazilian politics? Can you give any examples in the article? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Yuju #1: I will just remove that. When reading the book, I always thought it was hinting at Vargas’s appeal to the working class during the campaign and the Liberal Alliance. To include that in the article would just be too off-topic. #2: As for the trends and developments, I don’t have any examples since this is most likely referencing a broad range of trends (e.g. economic development). The source is once again vague, most likely because it focused on the 1930 revolution. I felt it would be reasonable since I thought the reader could infer what this sentence meant. If you would like me to remove it as well, I will, but I believe someone would be able to grasp what the sentence is saying. It is also an important piece of information compared to "reverted the political climate..." and provides insight into the effects of the coup and the new era. FredModulars (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Yuji, sorry. FredModulars (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FredModulars I think your reasoning for the changes or not about this two topics (and the AIB information, as well) is good enough. So I'm passing it as a GA. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments and quickness in the review process. Have a great day. FredModulars (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]