Self-nomination. It's a pretty good article. I've worked really hard on this one. It has been peer reviewed and I now think it is ready to be featured. If there's anything yet to do I'll do it. Just say it. Thanks.
Gameiro01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose History of Portugal during the Revolutionary, Napoleonic and restoration era merits a section on historiography, see 2b: comprehensiveness.
Fifelfoo07:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
It sounds to me like he's talking about French history (the 1777-1834 era coincided with the Revolutionary, Napoleonic, and Restoration periods in France), though that's no less puzzling considering this article is about Portugal.
Andrew Levine20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
He means that the article should include a historiogaphy section - basically a section discussing what various historians have written about the topic. For example, Historian A might have argued for one interpretation of events, Historian B might have disagreed. I disagree with him - none of the other "history of..." featured articles I checked have one. Also the historiography doesn't strictly fall within the article's title.--
Cherryblossomtree23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
SupportOppose Sorry if I'm being picky, but I really don't like to see lists breaking up an article. Quite a few of them could be better rendered as prose in my opinion. Otherwise, an excellent article.
Borisblue05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Object as it needs a copyedit. Some examples follow:
"Algarves, all Portuguese territory located south of the Tagus" (missing a word presumably)
Should not have things like "See: Iberian Union" in parentheses
"The aged Queen Maria died in 1816, and was succeeded by the Prince-Regent who reigned as John VI of Portugal." Seems to end this section rather abruptly
"he invasion proved truly important in the History of Portugal, as the country was deeply influenced by the accidental consequences of the war" "history" should be lowercase, reword this sentence
"would later be in the origin of the Revolution" either missing a word or has an extra one
"pledged for the Prince to stay" not clear what "pledged" means here
I don't see any problem with some of your objections, like the "would later be in the origin of the Revolution". But, please, be bold and do some corrections yourself. I gave my best with my English. Is there anyone who can help? I've already tagged it for copyediting. Thanks.
Gameiro18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply