Talk:Revolution of the Ganhadores/GA1

GA Review

Passed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one, probably later today or in the next few days. A really interesting topic; I'm looking forward to it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments made below. It's great to see so much work has gone into an article whose subject, I suspect, is less well-known than it ought to be. Quite a few prose points below; my major concern at the moment is the sourcing. Everything at the moment rests on Reis, except for a three-citation block where I haven't been able to verify any one of those sources. It's difficult to ensure that the subject is covered properly (and to avoid too-close echoing of the source) without multiple perspectives: perhaps Reis' bibliography will provide a starting point?

I haven't yet done a CLOP, plagiarism and TSI check, but will do so. All in all, a very enjoyable and informative read. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. I've placed on hold: most of the points below, at least individually, are advisory. I'd like to see some of the ambiguity or opacity in the writing cleared up, and some work to pull the text further away from the sources on which it currently replies heavily. The image also needs to be addressed before we can pass the article. This feels like it should be a fairly short and straightforward job: happy to be flexible on the seven days, and please do let me know if you think I've been unclear or unfair on anything. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JJonahJackalope: just checking in, as it's now been over two weeks and I haven't heard from you. Are you going to be able to work on this one? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the belated work on this article, but I just recently made some updates to the article and have updated this talk page accordingly. Thanks again for starting this review, and if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, let me know JJonahJackalope (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for getting back to it so quickly. Mostly resolved: a few queries and quibbles outstanding, and the licensing on the photograph still needs a little more evidence to show that it is indeed PD. Copyright can be a frustrating one, so please do let me know if I can clarify exactly what is needed here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead/General

~~This isn't technically within scope for GA, but WP:TITLE would like ganhadores decapitalised. Separately, I think it should be italicised in the title, as it is in the text.~~
- I can change the article if you feel strongly regarding it, but I would think that the capitalization is consistent with other articles concerning specific events with multiple names, such as Night of the Long Knives.
  - That's a fair point, and Reis does capitalise, so there's at least a case to be made here. I think the capitalisation we have is fine, given that, but the point about italics stands (as Ganhadores is a non-English word). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English text (including ganhadores) should be placed into language templates (here {{lang|pt-BR|ganhadores}}) so that it can be properly rendered by screen readers, and so that the article can be properly categorised by the Wiki software. This is done sometimes but not consistently.
- Went through and tagged all Portuguese text in the body of the article with the proper language template.
  - Leaving up purely so that I remember to check this one.
    - Don't put lang templates in italics: they do it automatically. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removed the italics templates from around the Portuguese words.
~~both enslaved and free Africans: does this mean "people born in Africa", or also include their Brazilian-born descendants? If so, is "African" the right word for all of those?~~
- Changed to "people of African descent" to remove ambiguity.
fears of a slave revolt, such as the Malê revolt of 1835,: was the reaction to this revolt a direct cause of the government's proposed changes? If so, I'd make this more explicit.
- After searching through the references, I could not determine if the reaction was a direct response to the Male revolt, but it appears to be more of a general link between that event and later decisions by the government.
  - Understood. I'm not sure that "such as" is quite idiomatic in this context: like or in the vein of would fit better ("such as" would be used when we were giving examples to illustrate what a slave revolt was, but we mean more specifically a slave revolt understood with reference to that specific one). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed "such as" to "in the vein of".
~~while freedmen also had to provide: freedmen are by definition ex-slaves; were there any ganhadores who had never been slaves (e.g. the children of freedmen)?~~
- I'm not sure, I found no mention of this situation in the references used for the article.
  - Reis has the general aim was to control the circulation of blacks in public places, when at work and at leisure. Slaves or freed, they had to be carefully watched., which does imply that all black people were at least seen as either slaves or ex-slaves. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your reasoning, but I don't feel that the phrasing is explicit enough to make that distinction. I'm by no means an expert on Afro-Brazilian history, but I would assume that there could have possibly been black ganhadores who were born free, though this is conjecture on my part.
~~ordered the city council to rescind the fee requirement from the law, which the city council did: consider cutting which the city council did; we can usually take as read that orders are followed.~~
- Done.
~~Would João José Reis pass WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR; if so, worth a (red)link?~~
- He could possibly pass, I wouldn't be opposed to adding a red link, but am usually hesitant about that. In the coming weeks, I hope to do some more research and may create an article for Reis, if sufficient notability can be determined.
Add a non-breaking space before percent (or, more generally, any word that only makes sense with a preceding set of figures).
- Done.
  - Again, leaving up to remind me to check. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Slaves made up between 30 and 40 percent of the population, with a majority of them having been born in Africa, and were Nagos, or members of the Yoruba people from the area around the Bight of Benin.: this is a little unclear. As written, it implies that all slaves were Nagos; is this true? Reis certainly suggests that some were born in Brazil. I'd suggest splitting it into at least two sentences and being clear that members of the Yoruba people... is a definition of Nagos. NB also that Reis writes Nagôs (with the circumflex): is there a reason for us to do differently?
- I left off the circumflex to be consistent with the English language Wikipedia article on the subject, Nagos. Also, I agree that the existing sentence is a bit unclear and have split it up to improve the clarity.
  - Personally, I'd err the other way (we don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source, so Reis' use is a reason to change the eponymous article), but the approach adopted here is fine and within policy. New phrasing is good. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Law 14, which replaced the cantos with capatazias: I think it could be clearer as to exactly what this meant in practice. The following sentence goes some way to helping, and perhaps the information there could be more closely linked to what the difference between a canto and a capatazia was?
who would receive a salary from the ganhadores he oversaw and, according to the law, would "police the ganhadores".: I'm not quite sure what to imagine here: do the ganhadores employ the capataz (and pay him), or is he imposed upon them and paid through a sort of tax on the ganhadores? It would be worth being clearer, if we can, as to who had the responsibility to organise all of this.
- Concerning the two points above, I split the sentence into two to help a bit with clarity. However, regarding your requests, I'm not sure how to be clearer on the matter given the source material. I reread the Reis source and it does not appear as though he discussed the manner in which the capatazias were employed, though does state that the ganhadores paid them directly, which I specified in an edit to the article. If there is a specific edit you wish for me to make to aid in clarity, please let me know.
  - I suppose this is probably a limitation of having, in practice, a single source to go on. The GA standards don't require comprehensiveness, so this is not a major problem for the review, but you'd want to look for additional sources to round this bit out if taking it to FAC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a sense of how much 10,000 réis (and, more generally, the other currency amounts) represented? In these contexts, an inflation figure is fine, but it's often better to contextualise it versus another easily-reckoned amount (e.g. the average gahnador's weekly/monthly/annual pay), and/or perhaps other fines raised for other 'crimes'.
- Unfortunately, the only point of comparison regarding costs that I could find comes from Reis 1997 p. 356, which states that 5,000 reis was the cost of a5 kilos of "meat" (type not specified).
  - I'd put that stat in; it's a good way of contextualising how much that money was in practice (10 kilos of meat isn't a fortune, but isn't trivial when you don't have that much to begin with). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added that bit of information.
~~Note 3: "A 1997 article in the Journal of Latin American Studies" seems like a very long-winded way of saying "Reis".~~
- Added "Reis" to the note.
Reis is quite clear on the reasons why the ganhadores rejected the metal tags, other than cost (essentially, that they were obvious marks of humiliation and enslavement): could this be included in the article somewhere?
- Added this additional information to the first chapter of the "Course of the strike" section.
  - Good for content, but the grammar of the "with..." sentence is awkward in English: as they're a third group, I'd turn that into a main verb ("The Commercial Association argued ... the editors of the Jornal stated ... while the ganhadores viewed them ..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rephrased sentence accordingly.

Course of the strike

~~some slaves who wore their tags in public were stoned by strikers: stoned implies that they were killed; is this so?~~
- After rereading the text, I assume it meant "attacked with stones". In either case, I edited the article to remove the implication that they were killed.
  - Yes, that was my takeaway too. The WL to "stoning" now needs to be removed, however, as that article is explicitly about execution by stoning. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed the link.
by 12 June, many ganhadores had returned to work, wearing their tags. However, a significant number did not, either as a form of continued protest or because the city government had run out of tags: it isn't clear here whether a significant number did not return to work, or returned to work without their tags.
- Edited sentence to specify that many returned to work without their tags.

Aftermath

The strike had a large short-term impact on Salvador's and economy and history, as it had effectively shut down transportation within the city for a week: the two halves of this sentence don't quite fit together; a week's disruption is a not a long-term impact.
- Not sure how you want me to edit this sentence, as I specified that the impact was "short-term".
  - No, I'm not sure what I was thinking there. Perhaps it was the word large, but I think you've justified that sufficiently with the following clause. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~occurring several years prior to a more well-known strike involving printers in São Paulo.: when did the printers' strike take place?~~
- Added the year of this strike.
  - Any reason to remove the location? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I realized upon rereading the source that the location was not Sao Paulo, but Rio de Janeiro. Not sure how I made that mistake, but I removed reference to the location altogether. However, I have added the correct location to the article.
~~the larger Afro-Brazilian community in Salvador: we haven't heard much about this before; the article previously suggested that every black person in Salvador was Yoruba.~~
- I edited the previous sentence in the article to clear up ambiguity regarding "every" black person being Yoruba.

Sources

I am a little concerned that the article relies entirely on the work of Reis. Has anyone else written on this strike or the ganhadores? At the moment, there isn't really the evidence here that its subject has enough coverage in secondary sources for an article: multiple sources from a single author count as one for the purposes of WP:GNG.
- I searched for more Portuguese-language sources and have added several, which should satisfy the multiple source requirement.
  - I can see them in Further Reading, but not actually used in the article. You're right that that should head off any AfD, but if they contain relevant material, why not use some of it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, I couldn't find too much information in the sources I posted that aren't already in the article. I have not completely reviewed the other materials other users have uploaded to the Further reading section, in part due to lack of access to the articles, but I'll review those and see if there is any additional information that can be added from those.
~~Dias citation: his name should not be in all-caps.~~
- Done.
There's a chapter in this book by Betsy Kiddy titled "African responses to the end of the international slave trade and abolitionist initiatives in Bahia, Brazil, 1850-1865", which may have some useful material and can (for now!) be freely read online.
- I added that chapter as a source and added a reference that improved the section on the Male revolt, but unfortunately, I don't think there is much information in that chapter dedicated to talking about the Revolution of the Ganhadores, and additionally, Graden (the chapter's author) cites Reis' work as the source for his information on the incident.

I can't see anything supporting note 36 on the corresponding page. Note 35 is sourced to a whole book; could we have a more precise citation with a page number, or else a quotation here to WP:VERIFY that the content is indeed supported by the source?
- Those references were added by someone else after I had created this article. The statements in the sentence about the "short-term impact" are cited by the Reis reference at the end of the sentence. Additionally, I have moved those references to the Further reading section and will go through them later to see if there is any more specific information from them that can be added to the article.

The page numbers cited from Reis match those given in the citation on Cambridge's page, but not those in the article itself. In the text, issue 1 seems to end on p190 but issue 2 starts on p279. I am at something of a loss as to what's happened here (is there an issue 1.5 or similar?), but would suggest using the numbers actually printed on the page.

Image review

File:Salvador bahia panorama 1870.jpg needs a US PD tag (try Commons:Hirtle chart. Was 2005 its first publication?
There's no hard-and-fast rule for how many images a GA needs (other than that it should be illustrated if possible), but are there any other possibles: images of a ganhador at work, for example, or of Cansanção, or other images related to Brazilian slavery?
A map of where Salvador, Bahia and Rio are would be extremely helpful.
- Concerning all of these points, I was unfortunately unable to find any images of a ganhador on Commons. Additionally, I will look into the US PD tag based on your recommendation and will add a map of the areas as appropriate.
  - New map checks out fine. I see that we've said that File:Salvador bahia panorama 1870.jpg was published before 1928, but the earliest proof of publication we've offered is 2005. How do we know it was in print (not just created) before 1928? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, I was unable to find concrete proof that the image was first published prior to 1928. Therefore, I removed the PD-USA tag from the image and have removed the image from the article. I'm not opposed whatsoever to using another image, but unfortunately, I could not find any image on Wikimedia Commons of a ganhadore as work, nor could I find a good image of Salvador that had the PD-USA tag.
      - A few options. GA doesn't strictly require images if none exist, but we should use them if we can. From Commons:Category:Photographs of slaves in Brazil

* File:Negra da Bahia, 1885. Foto de Marc Ferrez.jpg (a black woman of Bahia, 1885)

* File:Slave Brazil 1865.jpg: from Rio in 1865; seems to be doing much what the ganhadores were.

* File:Senhor e seus escravos (Militao de Azevedo).jpg: a master and his slaves, somewhere in Brazil, 1860

* File:Salvador-Bahia Sé Catedral 1859.jpg gives a street view of Salvador at about the right time.

* File:Cidade da Bahia (The City of Bahia) (cropped).jpg isn't the greatest image, but is the right time period (1859) and definitely PD. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I added the last image, Cidade da Bahia, but the other images listed above lack the PD-USA template and I am unsure how to verify that they were published prior to 1928.

Spotchecks

Earwig: there's a bit of overlap with this page, but I don't see enough to cause a problem: it seems most likely that both are adopting Reis.
There's quiteft in aggregate there would be a strong case to be made that this article represents a copyright violation, given how much of it is so closely based on that single source. A few examples (our article first, then Reis):
- The registration fee cost 2,000 réis, while ganhadores would also have to pay another 3,000 réis for a metal plaque that had their registration number engraved on it. This plaque was to be worn around their necks at all times while working; compare To obtain a permit, or registration, each would have to pay 2,000 reis. At the same time, they were to pay an additional fee of 3,000 reis for a metal plaque engraved with their registration number, which had to be worn about the neck when they were at work.
- It was not an uncommon practice for slave masters to allow their slaves to live in rented places away from their homes and return only once per week to give their masters part of the money that they had earned through their labor, allowing them to keep the remainder.; compare It was a common, although not general, practice for slaveowners to permit their slaves to live outside the master's home in rented rooms, sometimes with former slaves as their landlords. They only returned to the master's house to `pay for the week', that is, to pay the weekly (and sometimes daily) sum agreed upon with their masters. NB also that our "once per week" makes this more uniform than the source allows.

At the moment, I think we're mostly on the right side of the line, but bringing in more sources, if they exist, would help, as would taking a good look at bits of the article based heavily on Reis to make sure that we're taking only bare facts, and not the phrasing or sentence structure. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- I went through and made some edits to the sentence structures you pointed out above.

Review template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
Mostly; a few points of clarity need to be addressed.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):
There are some issues here with verification: see comments above for details.

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
Some bits of CLOP that are close to or over the line; elsewhere, a little too close to Reis for comfort. Would like to see some movement here.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
The single image has some licensing issues; with that removed, it's unillustrated.

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
But see 6a above.
Overall:
Pass/fail:
Not far off: the mission-critical bits here are the clarity of writing, the image(s) and the close paraphrasing. Other suggestions for improvement made, particularly in terms of expanding the bibliography and greater compliance with those parts of the MOS not explicitly essential for GA.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

UndercoverClassicist, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you raised in this review. My sincerest apologies for the delay, but I hope that the changes made are sufficient. Thank you again for starting this review, and if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to reach out. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, hey, I just wanted to reach out again to let you know that I have made some additional edits to the article to address your points. Additionally, I have renamed the article to correspond with your request or Italics in the title. Please let me know if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, and I'll try my best to respond. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I wanted to reach out and let you know that I have made another round of edits to the article per your recent comments. Please let me know if there are any other questions or concerns you have about the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me except the question mark with the page numbers from Reis. Quoting down here for ease:

The page numbers cited from Reis match those given in the citation on Cambridge's page, but not those in the article itself. In the text, issue 1 seems to end on p190 but issue 2 starts on p279. I am at something of a loss as to what's happened here (is there an issue 1.5 or similar?), but would suggest using the numbers actually printed on the page.

Any thoughts here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JJonahJackalope: this is the only remaining significant issue that I can see: do you have a means of resolving it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Apologies, I must have missed your note here, but thanks for the ping. I'll work to resolve this issue ASAP. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Actually, after looking through the article, I'm a bit confused as to what the issue is. All of the references for Reis 1997 are cited using the page numbers given in both the JSTOR Article clipping here and in the reference for the Cambridge page here. The only discrepancy I can see is that, in that later reference, the page numbers seem to be off by a factor of 100, which I would assume is a typo of some sort. I don't know what you mean with your references to either "issue 1" or "issue 2", but if I'm missing something, please let me know and I'll fix it accordingly. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the problem: the Cambridge article we have linked seems to use the wrong pagination. I'm not sure this is really within our gift to solve; removing the link to that article would remove some confusion, but also take away access for anyone with a CUP login but not JSTOR. Leaving as-is is probably the best option. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:31, 1 September 2023 (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.