Talk:Institutional Act Number Five

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brazil: Government and laws / History High‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ideotrocks. Peer reviewers: Dnaugle21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AI-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219125747/http://www.politicaparapoliticos.com.br:80/interna.php?t=755387 to http://www.politicaparapoliticos.com.br/interna.php?t=755387

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of AI-5

Information provided looks good, but we need more sources on the information in regards to the consequences section. There isn't enough provided.Dnaugle21 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability have you identified to orient your article revisions? How will you use the Wikipedia:Five_pillars in your approach to expanding the section on consequences? Katherine.Holt (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of AI-5 Initial Draft

It looks like you are off to a great start, however much additional work will be needed. I think you've gotten a little too specific in the third paragraph of you lead section, which is meant to just be an overview of your topic. It appears that this is because you gave some historical background, which is great, but it should be placed in its own historical background section. Additional information should also be able to be put into the lead section, such as the ending date to your lead section to go along with the starting date. Additionally, in your "Consequences" section, I would suggest linking more of the terms and names to other wiki pages to making it easier for your readers. You should also look to expand more on your consequences section, as it seems that's the most important and talked about area of AI-5. Lastly, I would suggest expanded upon the "The end of AI-5" section. Think about why and how they were ended? Was the ending permanent and quick? Or was there more of a transitional period in its termination? Tommy DP (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of AI-5

Greetings. Sorry about the lateness of me looking this over. So far from reading over the article, it appears to be good. However, I would recommend moving some information around from the third paragraph of the lead section to the historical section. In the consequence section, It would be a good idea to cite all those articles, that way to identify it with an actual source. More links would be a good idea as well. Otherwise, looks pretty good.Dnaugle21 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]