Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 11:54, 30 January 2023

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC) .

Uruguayan War

Uruguayan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive2

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) • Astynax

Everyone has at least heard of the Paraguayan War (a.k.a. War of the Triple Alliance) (1864-70). But few have heard of the war that led to it. The Uruguayan War was the second of the international wars fought by the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Dom Pedro II. It was short and successful, but it brought terrible consequences to all countries involved directly and indirectly.

Writing this article was not an easy task. The Uruguayan War is usualy mentioned on sources in English either in an introductory chapter or the first chapter in works about the Paraguayan War. They talk about the Uruguayan civil war that caused it, a little bit about the siege of Salto and Paysandú, only to focus on the Paraguayan invasion. For the first time the entire war has been brought to English. Everything. All military operations. I'd like to thank Hoodinski for creating the much-needed maps for this article. They look wonderful. I hope you all enjoy a little bit of South American military history. Lecen (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Most war info boxes contain the headings Strength and Casualties and losses, would it be difficult to include these here? Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because there are figures on how many Brazilians fought the entire war, the same goes to Blancos and Colorados. How many civilians died is also a mystery, as the "aftermath" section tells. I don't want to guess them since it would mean my POV. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, I don't understand why are Argentina, the Argentine parties Unitarian and Federal and Bartolomé Mitre listed in the infobox. The only mentions to Argentine topics are in the context sections, neither Argentina nor any Argentine military leader or army (unitarian or federal) is ever mentioned in war action from "Early engagements" to "Fall of Montevideo"... except when it is mentioned that Mitre (listed as a commander?) refused to join the conflict and had Argentina stay neutral. Being allied in previous conflicts does not count, nor providing mere political or economic support: the infobox is for actual belligerents.

Second, why is this conflict treated as a stand-alone war, and not as a campaign of the War of the Triple Alliance? After all, if we skip all the introductory and contextual information, all we got here are a handful of sieges and naval skirmishes, and military actions continue after it (Solano López takes military action in support of the Blancos, and the war heads next to López). In fact, I feel that the article is a bit too big than it actually should: there are lengthy explanations of things that lead nowhere, lengthy explanations that overlap with similar explanations that may be made for the War of the Triple Alliance itself, high use of quotations, trivial information... for example, in "Army of the South in Paysandú", we have 9 lines and 3 quotations just to say that Brazilians were more numerous and better armed. If, as you say, all English literature treats this conflict as a campaign of the War of the Triple Alliance, it must be for a reason... perhaps because that's what it is. Here I searched Google books for "Uruguayan War" plus "Flores", and only got 68 results.

I should point as well that this article uses English and Brazilian sources, but lack any Uruguayan sources. Cambalachero (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, File:Gaucho 1868c.jpg is a lower version of File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, a featured picture made from the same photo (and it is an Argentine gaucho, makes little sense when talking about Uruguayans). Still, it should be better replaced by an image with higher EV in relation with the Blanco-Colorado conflict, rather than just a generic image of a random gaucho. Cambalachero (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I take these criticisms seriously ... I've said similar things in the past at Milhist (although not specifically about Lecen and Astynax's articles), that military history is not just things that go "boom" ... it's history. (And a lot of Milhist guys know that ... quite a few have or will soon have PhDs in history ... but some don't know.) But that's just my personal opinion about military history. My personal opinion about Misplaced Pages is that "it is what it is", and there's not a lot that I can, or should, do to try to make it something completely different. Many of the more than 130,000 military history articles don't do a lot more than tell you who did what when and what the results of the combat were. Lecen and Astynax tend to cover context ... but if they want to write an article that's long on what happened and short (or shorter than you want it to be) on historical context, I'd be hypocritical to oppose their article on the grounds that we don't do that here ... because we do in fact do that here, sometimes. Having said that, I hope the three of you can reach a position that you can all live with. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the 4º entry of the FA criteria: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". The context, political, social and economic causes of a war are valuable information, but at the main article, the one of the main war, the War of the Triple Alliance. We don't repeat that information at all the articles of battles and campaigns of that war, that info should be provided in them in summary style. Cambalachero (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First, let's be clear—this is a legitimate topic for an article. It may be retroactively considered a campaign, but there is clearly enough material here for a stand-alone article, and six other-language Wikipedias agree. Second, there aren't that many quotations. Could you give clear examples rather than alluding to such problems? You give one, but that's not indicative of problems with the whole article ... and, quite frankly, the example you give is terrible. Yes, he could simply state that "the Brazilians were more numerous and better armed", but that doesn't tell us why, which is what this article does. It also shows why the Paraguayans jumped in; in your preferred version, we wouldn't know why "the war ... revealed the Empire's military unpreparedness".

I also don't see why some of the information shouldn't be repeated here. While summary style is good, every article must also be able to stand on its own, which is criteria four: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". If anything, we should have more information here, because the Paraguayan War article (when fully developed) will be larger and necessarily less detailed.

Without clear, justifiable examples, there's little we can do. The two criticisms here that are merited are the concerns with the infobox, which typically only show true belligerents, and the lack of Uruguayan sources, which Lecen should show why none are used. Ed  08:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The "scene-setting" in the article is fractionally long for my tastes, but I'd agree with Dank that it is typically an important part of understanding subsequent military events, and any article should be self-contained in terms of giving essential context. I'd recommend tweaking the section headings to make it clearer when the war starts within the article, but again, that's a relatively minor change. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the support I got from Dank, The ed17 and Hchc2009. I would be far more happier with reviews... :) Anyone who knows me also knows that Cambalachero and I have been clashing for some time because I found out that he has been using spurious sources (books written by Argentine Fascists that have no historiographic legitimacy)(see Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page). He has never contributed to Uruguayan War nor has ever edited its talk page (see the article's history log). Regardless, I will share my thoughts about his "arguments":

1) "First of all, I don't understand why are Argentina, the Argentine parties Unitarian and Federal and Bartolomé Mitre listed in the infobox. The only mentions to Argentine topics are in the context sections, neither Argentina nor any Argentine military leader or army (unitarian or federal) is ever mentioned in war action from 'Early engagements' to 'Fall of Montevideo'..." This passage reveals that he hasn't bothered to read the article and that has no knowledge of the topic.

On "Liberating Crusade of 1863" is said: "Flores and his Colorado units served Buenos Aires with fierce determination. They played a decisive part in the Battle of Pavón on 17 September 1861, in which the Confederation was Aires. In fulfillment of his commitment, Mitre arranged for the Colorado militia, Argentine volunteer units and supplies to be carried aboard Argentine vessels to Uruguay during May and June 1863."

On "Paraguayan–Blanco close ties" is said: "The Blancos were also aided by several Argentine Federalists, who joined their cause. As in Uruguay, Argentina had long been a battleground of opposing parties. Bartolomé Mitre's victory at Pavón in 1861 had also signaled the triumph of his Unitarian Party over the Federal Party led by Justo José de Urquiza. Mitre denied any involvement in the Flores rebellion, even though his complicity was widely understood."

2) "Second, why is this conflict treated as a stand-alone war, and not as a campaign of the War of the Triple Alliance?" Another serious error. The Paraguayan War (a.k.a. War of the Triple Alliance) began when Paraguay seized the Brazilian steamer "Marquês de Olinda" and then invaded Brazilian provinces (and later one Argentine province). It was a war between Paraguay and the Triple Alliance (Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina), not a war between Brazil and Uruguay. Anyone knows that, even people with the slightest knowledge of South American history.

3) "I should point as well that this article uses English and Brazilian sources, but lack any Uruguayan sources." This is novel to me. Does it mean that to write World War II we would be forced to use books published in every single country that fought in the war? The MoS is clear when it says that "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."

4) "By the way, File:Gaucho 1868c.jpg is a lower version of File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, a featured picture made from the same photo (and it is an Argentine gaucho, makes little sense when talking about Uruguayans). Still, it should be better replaced by an image with higher EV in relation with the Blanco-Colorado conflict, rather than just a generic image of a random gaucho." Yet another serious error. "Gaucho" was a culture that extended over several countries in the Platine region and it's not limited by national boundaries. The Gauchos were semi-nomadic riders, descended from the mixture of whites, blacks and Indians. An Argentine gaucho talked, dressed and lived just like an Uruguayan and Brazilian gauchos. In fact, a Brazilian gaucho would identify himself more with an Argentine gaucho than with a Brazilian from Porto Alegre (capital of Rio Grande do Sul), for example.

Thomas L. Whigham said: "No one had ever adequately defined the frontier between Rio Grande do Sul and Uruguay. The inhabitants of this zone identified themselves either as Brazilians or Uruguayans; their nationalism was expedient depending on which nation was useful as a shield in a time of need. Borderlanders lived their lives in much the same way whether on the Brazilian side of the frontier or the Uruguayan side. They worked in ranching, often with thousands of head of cattle to manage; spoke Spanish and Portuguese (and sometimes Guaraní) with equal fluency; enjoyed sipping mate, sharing tales, and playing the same card games as their gaucho cousins in Argentina. And they wore the same regional costume: loose baggy trousers (bombachas), calf-skin boots with silver spuns, a colourful shirt with silk handkerchief about the throat, a wide but unadorned sombrero strapped under the chin, a belt studded with silver coins and a razor-sharp knife (facón), and a dark blue or black poncho of delicate wool flung jauntly over the shoulder to reveal the scarlert lining." (page 144 of Whigham, Thomas L. The Paraguayan War: Causes and Early Conduct, 2002).

With this description, I could use the photo to portray a Brazilian gaucho, an Argentine gaucho or an Uruguayan gaucho. Unlike Cambalachero, I know what I'm talking about. And because of that and also because of the reasons I gave above, I will ignore him. --Lecen (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate, violent response. Regardless of all the conflicts you may have with Cambalachero, you should not insult someone who is trying to help improve the article.--MarshalN20 | 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Brazilian-Colorado troops", "Brazilian–Colorado forces": The hyphen-dash (or is it hyphen–dash?) wars are lame, but I know it can't be both. I think it might be best to do without either here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry. I fixed that. I really don't have a formal opinion about the "hyphen-dash wars". Any of the is fine to me. --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: After reading Lecen's statement above, I am not satisfied with his explanation for the inclusion of Argentina as a participant in the conflict (even with the note of "veiled support"). That seems to me more of a WP:OR, rather than a historical consensus. I also think that the Gaucho image could probably be better (such as this one from Wikimedia commons: ), rather than having a standing Gaucho. Lastly, the lack of Uruguayan sources can surely be corrected in the future (assuming a Uruguayan editor, or someone knowledgeable in that perspective, edits the article); however, that should not be a problem at present. Other than that, the article is great. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, you and I differ on the gaucho image. I like File:Gaucho1868b.jpg because it does its intended job, and it's a FP. Choosing images is always a compromise between content and quality,and I think the current image is the best compromise we have. Ed  21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha, it may just be a matter of style. In any case, the current image is not bad (certainly, as you mention, it's a FP), and only four articles use it (this being the only soon-to-be FA one). The reason I like the other image is that it shows action within a context unique to a particular time in Gaucho history.--MarshalN20 | 22:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review (not commenting on the discussion immediately above)

• Possible to be consistent with the flag linking in the infobox? Two of the flags link to their image description pages, four link to the article for the entity the flag represents, and the rest don't link at all
• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• File:Flag_of_Artigas.svg: the uploader does not hold the copyright to the original flag so can't release the image as PD. Same with File:Bandera_argentina_unitaria_marina_mercante.png (and suggest checking the other flags). These images may very well be PD, but they need different licensing tags
• If File:Gaucho1868b.jpg is kept, it needs a US PD tag
• File:Territorial_disputes_in_the_Platine_region_in_1864.svg is based on a deleted file, so it's unclear what the source of the underlying map was
• While this is not a FA requirement, images on Commons (such as File:Buenos_Aires_1864.jpg) should demonstrate the licensing in country of origin as well as US
• File:Rio_de_Janeiro_from_the_morro_do_Castelo_by_Leuzinger_1865.jpg: page?
• File:Fragata_amazonas.jpg needs US PD tag, source link is dead
• File:Villa_del_salto_destroyed.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Civilians_leaving_paysandu.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Siege_of_Paysandu_04.jpg: page?
• File:Uruguayan_War.svg: what was the underlying map used to create this image?
• File:Cerro_de_Montevideo_desde_la_ciudad._Año_1865_(no_watermark).jpg needs US PD tag
• File:GuerradoParaguai_1865_Nova_Palmira.jpg, File:Siege_of_Paysandu_05.jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply: The first 2 items on the list are fixed. I'll let Lecen look into the image tags. Thanks for taking a look. • Astynax 07:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they are all done now. If something is wrong, please let me know, Nikkimaria. --Lecen (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked the others but Civilians leaving paysandu has a life+100 tag with no author given. 100 years takes us back to 1912 (it's the end of the year), and the file dates from 1865, meaning the author could easily have lived for 47 years from taking the photograph. No indication of publication date either. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Would PD+70 work then? 77 years is a long time. Ed  21:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Only two photographers are known to have been in Paysandú: a Frenchman called Emile Lahore (1825–1889) and the Bate y Cia. Studio. "He was evidently the first photographer to reach the scene of battle, for none of the chroniclers of its defense mention the presence of any photographer during the siege" (p.160 of Kraay, Hendrik; Whigham, Thomas L.; 2004). George thomas Bate (1835–1882) founded the Bate Y Cia. Studio in 1859. Unfortunately my source does not tell which one took the photo, but both are dead for over 130 years. For further info, see "Image of War" (chapter 9) in Kraay, Hendrik; Whigham, Thomas L. (2004). I die with my country: perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864–1870. Dexter, Michigan: Thomson-Shore. ISBN 978-0-8032-2762-0 --Lecen (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I spoke too soon. Lecen, this would be good to add to the image description page, just to make sure that a marauding Commons admin doesn't see proof of the PD-100 and tries to delete it. Ed  21:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I did that. --Lecen (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I know nothing of the subject matter, but see no obvious flaws.

In the lead,

• should "Fusionism" read "Fusionist"?
• should "one fifth" be treated as singular? That is, "Almost one fifth of the Uruguayan population was considered Brazilian."

In the Army of the South in Paysandú section,

• "He entered into talks with Saraiva and won over his and the Brazilian government" (i.e. one government that is both Saraiva's and Brazil's) or "He entered into talks with Saraiva and won over his and the Brazilian governments" (i.e. two governments, one Brazil's and one Flores's)? Maybe recast the sentence to avoid the ambiguity? For example, "He entered into talks with Saraiva and won over the Brazilian government" or ""He entered into talks with Saraiva and won over his own and the Brazilian governments". DrKiernan (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed the first two issues you pointed. The last one was actually a typo: should read "won over him" not "his". Saraiva was a representative of Brazil. He was member of the political party then in power in the empire. I appreciate your willingness to review the article, even though this is not a field of interest of yours. I'm really grateful. --Lecen (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on prose: a spot-check of the lead revealed "spurred by discontent with Blanco government policies that they regarded harmful to their interests" which needs an "as" to be proper English. If I found that in less than 30s it's likely there are other faults. Will take a more detailed look later today. --John (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: thanks for looking. The "as" has been added. Let us know if you find anything else of concern. • Astynax 20:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing that. I see 6 "however"s and a "nevertheless" in this article; are they all really essential? --John (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removed four out of six "however" and the sole "nevertheless". Let me know if the other two should go too. --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's looking good. Still not ready to support but I am headed in that direction I think. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here's some more:
  • "Flores' " or "Flores's" for the possessive?
  • "Liberating Crusade of 1863" Why the capital?
  • "The internal weaknesses of Fusionism now exposed, the Colorados moved to oust the Fusionist government." seems like an awkward construction to me.

--John (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because "Liberating Crusade" is the name Flores gave for his rebellion. It was its official title (regardless how ridiculous it sounds, of course). And the source spells it "Liberating Crusade", not "liberating crusade". Do you believe we should change it? --Lecen (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's a good answer. I'd favour making this explicit; say 'what Flores called the "Liberating Crusade"' and consider using quote marks as the source does. --John (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "...and framed his 'Liberating Crusade' (as he called his rebellion) in the familiar terms..." and "With the internal weaknesses of Fusionism now exposed, the Colorados moved to oust its supporters from the government" Is this ok for you? --Lecen (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Paraguayan–Blanco close ties
  • "As in Uruguay, Argentina had long been a battleground of opposing parties,..." seems awkward
  • Second para: I'd rewrite without the "however" and the "on the other hand". Less is more and I think this wording looks clunky
• Empire of Brazil and the civil war
  • "Brazilian banking and commercial firms also engaged in ventures in the area, furthering ties within the region." The "within" is ambiguous
  • "retaliations" should be singular (uncountable) or else use a different noun like "retaliatory raids"
  • "to request for immediate government intervention" lose "for"
  • "fact that Uruguayan citizens had just valid claims against Brazil as Brazilians had against Uruguay was ignored" -> "just as valid"?
  • "believing that it would better for the central government" -> "would be better"
• Brazilian ultimatum
  • "accommodate Brazil's stipulations" is awkward, unidiomatic. Try "comply with Brazil's demands"?
  • "With regard to the situation between the Empire of Brazil and Uruguay, both nations exhibited loathing for one another..." -> "Brazil and Uruguay exhibited loathing for one another"

More to come. --John (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• All done. Just two notes: I changed "battleground of opposing parties" to "battleground of rival parties". And "furthering ties within the region" to "furthering Brazil's ties within the region". Let me know if that's not okay. --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the interest of efficiency I made the remainder of my adjustments in this series of edits. Nothing major; a few typos, favouring the active voice over passive, sever and severe, consist and comprise. One question: "Mena Barreto sailed on 14 January with the Brazilian infantry from Fray Bentos, bound for a landing on the backshore of the Santa Lucía River, near Montevideo" but the Santa Lucia River does not appear to be near Montevideo. Can you check that please? Otherwise the prose seems ok. --John (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's correct. See it on google maps: --Lecen (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Huh, my mistake, sorry. How do you mean "the backshore"? MW defines it as the upper part of a beach ("the part of the seashore between the foreshore and the coastline covered by water only during storms of exceptional severity"), so how can a river have one? Do you mean the mouth of the river? Were my other edits ok with you? --John (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. The mouth of the river, or near it, since we are talking about land forces. I saw no problem with your edits. In fact, they saved us both a lot of time. --Lecen (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I've adjusted the wording to clarify that. I was confusing the river with the Rio Negro, hence my confusion. Sorry about that. I think that's it for prose. I'm striking my oppose, but I may still have one or two questions before I support. --John (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't forgotten about this. I am sorry for the delay in finishing this review. --John (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's my final comment. While I am now happy that the prose of this article works ok, I would like some reassurance from someone who is more of a subject expert than me that this article completely fulfils NPOV. I'm looking at content like

• "Brazil's government decided to intervene, fearful of giving any impression of weakness in the face of impending conflict with Britain and believing that it would be better for the central government to take the lead rather than allowing the Brazilian ranchers on the frontier to decide the course on their own"
• "The Brazilian monarchy could not afford to remain aloof, for it had vital interests in the Río de la Plata Basin. "
• "There are a few books that claim that Muñoz's men raped Brazilian women during their retreat from Jaguarão (Tasso Fragoso 2009, Vol 1, pp. 246–247; Osório & Osório 1915, pp. 20–21). The sole contemporary source mentioning the rapes was an article in a gazette (Schneider 2009, p. 102). The attack on Jaguarão only became widely known following an official report submitted by the president (governor) of Rio Grande do Sul, in which there is no mention of violence toward Brazilian women, only of looting and the kidnapping of slaves.(Schneider 2009, pp. 88–89, 102; Golin 2004, pp. 304–305; Bormann 1907, pp. 210–215). It is known that one Brazilian (a former Ragamuffin officer) was castrated and had his ears cut off after he was killed, a common practice among gauchos (Bormann 1907, p. 215)."
  • It's difficult to ask this question without sounding like I am personalising the discussion, but Lecen, I believe, is Brazilian, and some of this content looks potentially contentious and involves Brazil. I would like to be reassured that someone who is well up on the material but comes from a different "side" has reviewed this material, before I could support. Ideally I suppose a Uruguayan, though that may not be possible. Any takers? --John (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe there's an ongoing Arbcom case where questions of bias are being considered, and this article may be one of the ones they're examining. I haven't peeked in on that case, and don't know if that will help answer your question. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No, it hasn't. Cambalachero and MarshalN20 are being investigated because they have been using for the past 4 years books written by anti-Semitic and fascist authors while removing all mainstream authors. They came here to retaliate. MarshalN20 opened yesterday a thread on the ANI to report Astynax because he changed a few wikilinks (yes, just because he did that). MarshalN20 canvassed Cambalachero (the other editor under investigation) to act together against Astynax. --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- this has been open quite some time without achieving consensus to promote but if you're still actively reviewing, John, I'll leave it open a little longer and see what develops. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience Ian. See final comment above. --John (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I promise to change the vote once some important points have been answered.

1. Article title: The name "Uruguayan War" is really ambiguous. A Google Books search (see ) shows that there are several "Uruguayan Wars" that can fit the title. Suitable solutions to this problem include the addition of a year timespan on the title (i.e., "Uruguayan War (1864-1865)") or a name change to "Brazilian invasion of Uruguay" or "Brazilian Invasion of Uruguay (1864)" (see ). If Lecen or Astynax have a better proposal, I am also willing to listen.
2. Spanish name: The Spanish name for the war is "Invasión brasileña de 1864". The term "Guerra del Uruguay" is a translation from the Portuguese/Brazilian name of "Uruguayan War" (see ).
3. Veiled support: Neither Lecen nor Astynax have answered why it is reasonable to have Argentina placed as "veiled supporter" of the war in the infobox.

One final note regarding the article title: Changing the title does not mean that every name "Uruguayan War" must be changed within the article. I also hope that these comments are seen as constructive and no personal attacks are made against me for them. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Listing the "Uruguayan Wars":

• Uruguayan War of Independence (1811):
• Uruguayan War of 1825-1828; also known as Uruguayan War of Independence (1825-1828):
• Argentine-Uruguayan War:
• Brazilian-Uruguayan War:

I tried to help with the ambiguity by adding a little note at the top, but Lecen disagrees (see ). That was my only idea for the moment, so I assume Lecen must have better ones. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 23:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm sorry to do this, because I think this article can't be faulted on its content, which is stellar, but it does still need some work. Looking just at the lead the Argentinian connection seems to be organised strangely, and there's clearly some redundancy in "In a combined offensive against Blanco strongholds, the Brazilian–Colorado troops advanced jointly through Uruguayan territory." If it was a combined offensive then they clearly advanced jointly. I think this article could do with some polishing away from the FAC spotlight, which I'll commit to helping with, and be brought back again in a couple of weeks. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment (2) -- I think MF has summed it up; I left it open to give it a chance to achieve consensus to promote but that hasn't occurred, so pls work on resolving outstanding points away from FAC and bring it back after the usual two weeks has passed. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• 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) 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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