# Talk:Brazilian military junta of 1930

I changed the image from the first, to the second as above, and was reverted with the following comment:

With all due respect Hohum, most Wikipedia articles use only the image you implemented for President Luís (as you can see on Wikimedia commons).
There are many more photos of the president, such as this one, and the regular photo that is used everywhere is oversaturated. 

Also, this photo of Luís also displays him in the presidential stash
There is a reason so many other pages use the image I used, including his own article page - its far superior in quality.
Perhaps you could also explain how a greyscale image can be oversaturated?
I understand the point about the sash, but the quality of the image is so bad, I think it's not sensible to use it.
Other editors opinions are encouraged. (Hohum @) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum: I believe you have misinterpreted my summary a bit. For starters, when I said oversaturate, I was not referring to the principle of photography, rather referencing how much it has been used on Wikipedia. This is the reason I cited Wikimedia commons, pointing out how much the greyscale image has been used.
You continuously mention how poor of a quality the image I implemented is. By definition, it does not violate any of the criteria in reference to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY.
I agree 100% with you that the image you have selected supersedes my image in quality. However, with 7 pages using this image (File:Washington Luís (foto).jpg) and at least one page (1926 Brazilian presidential election) using some form/crop of the photograph, it goes without saying that nearly all articles portray Luís (on the en wikipedia at least) in the same photo. If not the one I chose (the one where you put the caption "Low quality"), which at least has the stash in it, then at least some other photograph with the plethora that is available. It would be uncanny for nearly all articles on the en wikipedia to portray the former president in the same picture. The entire Luís category is almost never used on the en wikipedia, except for the one you are pushing. I mean not to start a debate, but I feel my argument has been thoroughly supported and I would be happy to hear anything you have to add. FredModulars (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I don't see a wikipedia guideline/policy etc. suggesting using less popular images just because other articles use another one though. Hopefully other editors will give their opinion. 07:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Well yes, because it seems obvious, to me at least. This argument has been made in regards to the Brazilian monarch Pedro II, and there have been many people in the past (including me) who argued for a higher quality image to be placed in his biography. The reason most people a few years ago were denied was that there are so many pictures of said person and the different pictures were being put in articles split off from his.
I don't understand how it would be beneficial to the reader of an encyclopedia to go to any page describing a head of state or any person of importance and see the same image for every single instance they appear. You wouldn't want to see the same painting of George Washington or the same picture of Winston Churchill everywhere you go, even if there is the one we are all accustomed to. The main goal of any image is to make the subject recognizable and on display, which the one I selected does perfectly. As I said, if not the one I chose, not the greyscale one either. FredModulars (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Correction, not "perfectly", the image I selected just does the job as any other image would. The main point I'm trying to make is (1) that low quality doesn't really matter since it would be an opinion and not going directly the official MOS and (2) that common sense says that it wouldn't be smart to have the same image everywhere for the same person in an encyclopedia or anywhere for that matter. FredModulars (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brazilian military junta of 1930/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 20:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This one seems to have been on the backburner for a while now, so I'll take it! – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much for taking the liberty to review this article! I really do appreciate it. FredModulars (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


### Criteria
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):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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 fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Lede
Change the opening of the paragraph from "Between 24 October and 3 November 1930, a provisional military junta governed Brazil from the ousting of President Washington Luís to the installation of Getúlio Vargas as his replacement at the end of the Revolution of 1930." to "The Brazilian military junta of 1930 was a provisional military junta that governed Brazil from the 24 October - 30 November 1930, at the end of the Revolution of 1930."
Done.
"The Brazilian military junta of 1930 was a provisional military junta that governed Brazil from 24 October – 30 November 1930 at the end of the Revolution of 1930." -> "The Brazilian military junta of 1930 was a provisional military junta that governed Brazil from 24 October – 30 November 1930. The junta was a result of the Revolution of 1930, and was ended when the three generals that had instigated the coup handed power over to revolutionary leader Getúlio Vargas."
Done. However, there is no prior information. The reader would be very confused with the sudden use of "coup," so I added some context.
"The First Brazilian Republic (1889–1930)... - beginning on 3 October 1930." seems to be more context to how the junta came about than the junta itself. Consider summarising it or removing it altogether.
Condensed.
"Generals Augusto Tasso Fragoso and João de Deus Mena Barreto, along with Admiral José Isaías de Noronha, decided Luís had to be removed from the presidency to prevent a civil war in the country." -> "Generals Augusto Tasso Fragoso, João de Deus Mena Barreto, and Admiral José Isaías de Noronha decided that Luís had to be removed from the presidency in order to prevent a civil war."
Done.
"With help from archbishop Sebastião da Silveira Cintra," – What kind of help?
Revised.
"...Luís was ousted from power in a coup and exiled on 24 October by the military leaders. Fragoso, Noronha, and Barreto took control of Brazil as a provisional governing body." -> "... On 24 October, Luís was ousted owns exiled by the military leaders, who took control of Brazil as a provisional governing body."
I edited this a bit, but it retains what you would like, I hope.
"They self-promulgated the junta to be the ruling force of the country, but in reality their jurisdiction was confined to Rio de Janeiro." -> "Whilst the junta claimed to be the sole authority of the country, its jurisdiction did not extend past Rio de Janeiro."
Done.
"With help from archbishop Sebastião da Silveira Cintra in persuading the President to resign, Luís was ousted in a coup by the military leaders, who took control of Brazil as a provisional governing body on 24 October. While the junta claimed to be the sole authority of the country, its jurisdiction did not extend past Rio de Janeiro." -> "Luís, having been persuaded to resign by archbishop Sebastião da Silveira Cintra, was ousted by the military leaders, who took control of Brazil as a provisional governing body on 24 October claiming to be the sole power in the country, despite only controlling Rio de Janeiro."
Done.
"They considered remaining in power... - ... after he arrived in Brazil." this entire section needs summarising. It's far too detailed for a lede and the sentence structure is choppy in places.
Done.
"The junta considered retaining power even appointing a few positions in the government." Comma after power.
"his arrival" -> "he arrived"
Fixed. Apologies for my subpar grammar there.
It's fine!
More citations are needed. Just a few would do - particularly around the parts about the Archbishop and the partisan leader in the final paragraph.
By partisan leader, I presume you mean Vargas. Their roles are already mentioned in the article, so I believe there is no need to re-add citations.
Replace the three images of the generals with [[File:Junta de 1930.jpg|thumb]].
Done.
Reword "The junta considered retaining power, even appointing a few positions in the government. The junta acquiesced to revolutionaries, however, on 3 November 1930, when they transferred power to Vargas after he arrived in Rio." to "Whilst the junta considered retaining power, it eventually acquiesced to revolutionaries on 3 November 1930, transferring power to Vargas after he arrived in Rio."
Done.
"While the junta considered retaining power, it eventually acquiesced to revolutionaries on 3 November 1930, transferring power to Vargas after he arrived in Rio." -> "The junta initially considered retaining power, but acquiesced to revolutionaries on 3 November 1930, transferring power to Vargas and the revolutionaries after they arrived in the capital."
I have to ask if this one is necessary. It is very similar to the original and both get the point across fine.
It's mainly to improve the flow of the sentence. "While the junta considered retaining power" didn't have the same effect as the recommended change.
Done.


### Background
Citations for this section all look good.
All the images in this section are free to use and look good.
"Throughout the First Brazilian Republic (1889–1930), the Brazilian presidency was interchanged between the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo." -> "Throughout the First Brazilian Republic, the presidency had been held entirely by politicians from the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo."
Done. However, I kept "interchanged" since I'd like to emphasize the fact the presidency was swapped between the two states each election.
"By using their power and influence as key economic states of the country and manipulating elections, the two states developed a system called "coffee with milk politics" (coffee being São Paulo's largest industry and dairy, milk and cream being Minas Gerais's largest), effectively making Brazil an oligarchy with power concentrated in the two states." -> "This was due to a system called "coffee and milk politics", wherein the two states — being the most economically advanced in Brazil — would exercise their power to manipulate elections in their favour, concentrating power in the two states. This effectively made the country an oligarchy."
Done.
"This was due to a system called "coffee and milk politics", wherein the two states — being the most economically advanced in Brazil — would exercise their power to manipulate elections in their favor, concentrating power in the two states. This effectively made the country an oligarchy." -> "This was due to an understanding between the two states, in which they would exercise their power as the most economically advanced states in the country to manipulate elections in their favour. This was referred to as "coffee and milk politics" (as coffee and milk were the dominant exports of the two states) and it effectively kept the country as an oligarchy."
This one, too. Is it necessary? I have no problem adding it, but it is just longer, to some extent more convoluted, and I have instead cut out "concentrating power in the two states."
"This tradition was broken when, in 1929, paulista President Washington Luís nominated paulista Júlio Prestes as the next president of the country, allowing a paulista to become president twice in a row rather than exchanging the position with Minas Gerais." -> "The tradition was broken in 1929, when incumbent Washington Luís nominated Júlio Prestes - another paulista (native of São Paulo) - as his successor, allowing two paulistas in a row to become president."
Done, but edited a bit.
"This move was opposed by the states of Minas Gerais, Paraíba, and Rio Grande do Sul, who, backed by the tenentes, created the Liberal Alliance and nominated Getúlio Vargas for the presidency." -> "Luís' decision was decried by other states, with Minas Gerais, Paraíba, and Rio Grande do Sul opposing it. With the support of the tenentes, they formed the Liberal Alliance and nominated formed Rio Grande do Sul state president Getúlio Vargas as president."
You are adding information that wasn't there before (Vargas being state president). I presume you got it from either the source or his article, but it wasn't there originally. The source, in fact, doesn't refer to him as state president. The first sentence you are asking me to add is repetitive, so I am going to shorten it (...decision was decried by Minas Gerais...).
Remove the quote and summarise what it gets across or merge it into the sentence.
Done.
Remove the "such as" from "The coalition wanted reform, such as"
Done.
"In March, Prestes won the 1930 election against Vargas, but the alliance claimed electoral fraud. This was despite there being accounts of fraud on both sides, with Vargas reportedly having won Rio Grande do Sul 298,627 to 982 votes." -> "In March 1930, Prestes won the election against Vargas. However, both sides claimed electoral fraud against each other, with Vargas reportedly having won Rio Grande do Sul 298,627 to 982 votes.
Article doesn't explicitly mention the Liberal Alliance being accused of fraud, only Prestes. New info will be omitted, rest has been included.
"Vargas's running mate, João Pessoa, was assassinated by João Dantas, and a revolutionary climate had been revitalized amongst the opposition (although Pessoa's death was attributed to private and public affairs)." -> "Vargas' running mate João Pessoa was assassinated by João Dantas, revitalising a revolutionary climate amongst the opposition." If there's a page for Dantas, wikilink it. If not, -> "Vargas' running mate João Pessoa was assassinated, revitalising a revolutionary climate amongst the opposition.”
Done. Linked to pt Wikipedia.
amounting -> mounting
Done.
"On 26 July 1930, Vargas' running mate João Pessoa was assassinated João Dantas, revitalizing a revolutionary climate among the opposition (although Pessoa's death was attributed to private and public affairs). Eventually, the mounting tension between the two factions resulted in a successful revolution instigated by Vargas and his allies in the country beginning on 3 October 1930 while Luís was still in power." -> "Tensions were exacerbated on 26 July 1930, when Vargas' running mate João Pessoa was assassinated by former vice presidential candidate João Dantas. Despite Pessoa's death being attributed to private and public affairs, it revitalised a revolutionary climate amongst the opposition, leading to Vargas and his allies instigating a revolution on 3 October 1930."
"assassinated by former vice presidential candidate João Dantas." What? This may have been a mistake, but Dantas was not a candidate. This new information makes no sense. I don't know where you got it from (it was probably an accident), but I won't include it. The rest has been added.
"The majority of the population supported the revolution, as even educated members of society recognized the election was only an attempt to keep the paulistas in power." -> "The majority of the population - including the educated members of society - supported the revolution, all believing the election was an attempt to maintain the paulista's power."
Done, but replaced hyphens with dashes.
"The majority of the population – including the educated members of society – supported the revolution, all believing the election was an attempt to maintain the paulista's power." -> "The revolution was supported by the majority of the population, as it was widely believed that it was an attempt to maintain the paulista's power." In addition, merge this sentence with the final paragraph of this section.
Done.
"abstain in" -> "abstain from"
Done
ExcellentWheat, I have edited some of your revisions to keep consistency with American English, not British, such as revitalising -> revitalizing. FredModulars (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine! – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this section complete? I think I covered everything. FredModulars (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this section looks mostly ok. It could use some copy-editing but that can come once the whole page has been looked over. If I spot anything else I’ll let you know! – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@ExcellentWheatFarmer: Hey! I am noticing a lot of new information not originally in the article. Your first round of edits were purely grammatical, with some pertaining to other sections of the GA criteria. As I have stated previously, I am omitting a lot of this new information you have added in your second round of grammatical edits. Not sure where you got most of it from. I would assume misinterpreting the article, mistakes in typing, or subconsciously adding information you saw another place. Also, unrelated, I am going to revert "The Junta" to "The junta." FredModulars (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah the majority of new information added was stuff I had found on the Portuguese Wikipedia.


### The junta
Capitalise the J in Junta
Done.
Change "Capitulation of Washington Luís" to "Capitulation of Luís"
Done.
"Luís was persistent in his fight to stay in office so that he could transfer power to Prestes, exemplified in his implementation of decrees to ensure his government's power was maintained, but the military generals in Rio de Janeiro believed the President's continued presence would lead to a civil war in the country and were "fearing a bloodbath"." -> "Luís wished to stay in office so that he could transfer power to Prestes. However, the generals opposed this, fearing that a "bloodbath" would be caused by his continued presence, leading to a civil war."
Done. Changed "wished" to "was determined" since the former denotes he was not trying to maintain power as much.
"However, the generals opposed this, fearing that a "bloodbath" would be caused by his continued presence, leading to a civil war." Has it been clarified who the generals are in the main body of the article yet? If not, do so.
This was overseen when the section's layout was edited to be in chronological order (edit below). Done.
The structure of the section needs to be rearranged so that it's chronological. Swap "Following the advice of Cardinal Dom Sebastião da Silveira Cintra...a few days later." with "The ousting...at Fort Copacabana."
Done.
"Days leading up to the removal of the President" -> "In the day leading up to the removal of the President"
Done.
"In the days leading up to the removal of the President," -> "In the days leading up to Luís' removal,"
Done.
"Afterward, Barreto confronted his colleagues in the military, including Fragoso and General Alexandre Henrique Xavier Leal, chief of the Army's staff, both of which declined any participation in the movement. On the morning of 23 October 1930, however, one of Barreto's sons approached Fragoso's residence to reconsider the opportunity to head the movement in Rio de Janeiro. Finally accepting, Fragoso proceeded to contact Barreto, meeting with him at Fort Copacabana." -> "Barreto asked Fragoso and the chief of the Army's staff, Alexandre Henrique Xavier Leal, whether they wanted to participate in the movement. While both men declined the offer, Fragoso was persuaded by one of Barreto's sons on the morning of 23 October 1930, meeting with him at Fort Copacabana."
Done.
"Following the advice of Cardinal Dom Sebastião da Silveira Cintra, Brazil's archbishop, Luís resigned" -> "Luís resigned on 24 October 1939, following the advice of Brazil's archbishop, Cardinal Dom Sebastião da Silveira Cintra."
Done. (1930)
The three military leaders have already been mentioned, so their names and ranks being described is obsolete. Replace "the military generals who ousted him"..."Fragoso also led the coup." with "Following this, the three instigators of the junta took control, led by Fragoso."
Noronha wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article before this with the exception of the lead, so I edited that a bit.
"A major rebel offensive was supposed to occur on the Paraná–São Paulo border, but was delayed due to bad weather from 20 October through 24 October. Just as the revolutionaries began a general offense in Itararé on 25 October, they heard about the coup in the capital and the ousting of Luís, and so the revolutionaries called off the attack." -> "A major rebel offensive was supposed to occur on the Paraná–São Paulo border but was delayed due to bad weather from 20—24 October. However, the attack was called off when the rebels heard of the coup in the capital."
Done. I added a minor revision, though I can remove it if you'd like.
"Governing of Brazil" -> "Government"
Done.
"Fragoso, Barreto, and Noronha declared themselves a ruling junta of the country, existing as a "pacifying junta" and claiming to exercise a "moderating power"" -> "Fragoso. Barreto, and Noronha declared themselves the ruling junta, claiming to exist as a "pacifying junta" with a "moderating power"
Done.
"They began negotiations to remain in power of the country rather than give power to Vargas and other revolutionaries. This hope was short-lived as the junta faced increasing pressure from southern troops entering Rio as well as popular demonstrations and the "mob feeling" they unleashed on the streets of the capital. Additionally, Vargas was not going to tolerate the junta remaining in power, ordering Oswaldo Aranha to travel to Rio de Janeiro and arrange the transition of power to himself. Aranha and Tavora arrived in the capital together on 28 October to talk with the junta about the new government." -> "Initially, the generals attempted to remain in power, appointing a new Minister for War, Chief of Police, and Governor of São Paulo. This proved unsuccessful, however; due to popular demonstration, increasing pressure from troops entering the capital, and the opposition of Vargas, the government held talks with Oswald Aranha and Tavora on 28 October to arrange a new government."
Done.
"The junta also appointed a Minister of War...erupted in São Paulo" can be cut.
The protest to the Junta's São Paulo governor is an important detail that should not be omitted.
That's fair, but "The junta also appointed a Minister of War, a Chief of Capital Police, and a poorly-received governor of São Paulo." has already been mentioned, so that part should go.
All right, should be good now.
The table should probably be removed entirely, or reformatted to something less disruptive to the flow of the article.
I have made it so that the table is collapsed initially. I can revise it further if you believe it should.
It only really exacerbated the issue, I'm afraid. Would it be possible to present the information stated in the table in another way?
Would a separate section (either within or separate from "Government") do?
Give it a try. Maybe put it near the bottom of the page, see how it looks.
I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I think I got it.
Ok, looking at it, it's probably best that you turn it into a footnote. That way you can have all the information you want and it won't be breaking up the flow of the article.
I merged the information into an existing paragraph and deleted some.
"They went on to reveal that they believed it was "absolutely necessary to halt the useless spilling of blood and the usless destruction of property, which on either side would be Brazilian blood and Brazilian property."" -> "They went on to reveal that they believed the measures taken were necessary to "halt the useless spilling of blood and the useless destruction of property, which on either side would be Brazilian blood and Brazilian property.""
Done.
"On 24 October, the junta, specifically Barreto as "General of Division", released a proclamation, or manifesto. Barreto was also the only junta member who signed the document alongside Bertoldo Klinger [pt] as adjutant." -> "On 24 October, Barreto released a manifesto signed by himself and Bertoldo Klinger on behalf of the junta."
Done.
Ref #23 doesn't link to anything.
Added link.
"They began by pronouncing, "The Brazilian nation is anxious for peace." They went on to reveal that they believed it was "absolutely necessary to stop the useless spilling of blood and the useless destruction of property, which on either side would be Brazilian blood and Brazilian property." They also listed guidelines for Brazilian troops, ordering revolutionaries and federal troops to cease fighting and to ignore any order from the previous government, which they denounced several times." -> "Within the manifesto, the junta pronounced that "The Brazilian nation is anxious for peace", condemning the fighting in the streets. In addition, the manifesto issued guidelines for Brazilian troops, ordering the revolutionaries and federal troops to stop fighting and ignore any orders from the previous government."
I'd like to keep the manifesto excerpt you have excluded. It doesn't have any historical value per se, but it helps identify the junta's philosophy and why they overthrew a government. Its value is magnified when you read the original quote: "The chief idea of this movement is pure patriotism, because it is absolutely necessary to stop the useless spilling of blood and the useless destruction of property, which on either side would be Brazilian blood and Brazilian property."
That's fine by me!
"Revolutionaries were surprised at the coup, as it had been done without previous notice." -> "The revolutionaries were caught off guard by the sudden nature of the coup, having been given no notice."
Done.
Try summarising or shortening the quote from Vargas.
I have cut it to start when Vargas begins to mention the junta. If you would like I can cut it further or simply paraphrase it.
Yeah paraphrasing would probably be preferable.
Done.
Looking much better already.
All the citations and images for this section look to be in order,
ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs), quick question. You have proposed a lot of revisions so far, so I have to ask, what do you think of the article so far (either your opinions, its possibility of becoming a GA, or both)?

I think the article's content is good. It's well-verified so far, it has good image use, and the information presented is very good (I didn't even know there was a coup in Brazil in 1930, to be quite frank), etc. The biggest issue with this article is the way it is written and presented. I'm picking up the most glaring issues where I can, but the article seems to have a lot of sentences that run on with an excess of detail, a lot of which is trivial or could be simplified and/or merged into other sections. Overall, I think if we keep going at this pace, then the article could reach GA standards. My apologies for being somewhat sporadic in my notes as of yet by the by, real life can tend to get in the way. I'll try and have sorted the rest of this review out in the next day or two, and then we can look at finishing it. Cheers for your co-operation so far! – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
That is my fault and I concur that my writing was not the greatest. Your delays are not a hindrance, and you don't have to apologize. I'd just like to point out some "trivial information" (not that which can't be condensed) is actually not so trivial, to some extent significant. FredModulars (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
And that's totally fair! Again, my knowledge of Brazilian history is next to none, so if something IS important be sure to let me know.


### End of the Junta
"Transition of power to Getúlio Vargas" -> "Transition of power"
Done.
"Vargas claimed he would only arrive in Rio de Janeiro when it was occupied by Rio Grande do Sul troops. Consequently, from 27 October through 31 October, 3,000 Rio Grande do Sul troops would enter and secure the capital. After disembarking on the morning of 31 October, Vargas and his comrades arrived in Rio the same day via train and, in a gesture of power, hitched their horses to the obelisk at the foot of Avenida Rio Branco, a famous Brazilian landmark. This was an act of symbolism of regional victory." -> "Vargas, refusing to enter Rio de Janeiro until it was controlled by Rio Grande do Sul, arrived in the capital on the morning of the 31 October, after 3,000 troops had secured it. Upon arriving, Vargas and his comrades hitched their horses to the foot of Avenida Rio Branco, as a way of symbolically showing regional victory."
Done.
"Vargas would arrive at the Catete Palace the same day; he received massive praise." -> "The same day, Vargas arrived at the Catete Palace, receiving massive praise."
Done.
"Upon arriving, Vargas and his comrades hitched their horses to the obelisk at the foot of Avenida Rio Branco as a way of symbolically showing regional victory. The same day, Vargas arrived at the Catete Palace, receiving massive praise.." Merge these two sentences. The part about Catete Palace seems tacked on.
Done.
"The junta handed power over the country to Vargas "peacefully" on 3 November 1930 at the palace, ending their reign over Brazil and beginning Vargas's presidency." -> "On 3 November 1930, the junta peacefully handed power over to Vargas, beginning Vargas's presidency and officially marking the end of the First Brazilian Republic."
Done.
"Additionally, the transition of power...Revolution of 1930" -> "On 8 November, amnesty was granted to all persons involved in the Revolution of 1930, with Vargas' provisional government was made legitimate on 11 November by Decree 19398."
Done.
The Aftermath and Legacy section seems to mostly detail what the generals involved in the coup did after it. A lot of it should probably be cut. In addition, there should more on the "legacy" part - How is the junta viewed today? What impact did it leave? Things like that are pretty vital for an article like this.
Problem is that the junta is, honestly, just a detail within the revolution to many. Much of the information you are requesting is simply not reserved for a body that existed for ten days to pacify the country. I have added some new information, but, as I have said, there isn't much.
Looks fine. I would, however, recommend summarising the details of what the generals involved in the coup did after the junta.
Not a lot of summation, but I did cut out and trim some parts.
"He would later be appointed minister of the Supreme Military Court and, later on, vice president of the organ." -> "He would be appointed minister - and later vice president - of the Supreme Military Court."
Done.
All the citations look in order!


### Final Thoughts
As previously stated, this article's content is pretty good. However, it desperately needs some more looking over grammatically - which I'll be doing in the next day or so -  and once the review is completed, I'd recommend asking for a more seasoned copy-editor to deal with it. However, once the most glaring of the grammatical issues are taken care of, I'd be happy to pass this. – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

All right, thanks. FredModulars (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Alright, the most glaring issues have been taken care of, so I'm gonna pass this. Thank you for your co-operation @FredModulars, this has certainly been an enlightening experience! – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It has been a pleasure. Your patience with my grammatical errors has been amazing. Thanks for helping me, and I am extremely happy this article was able to achieve GA status. Have a great night! FredModulars (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


### Part 1
The coalition advocated reform to address the below-average working conditions of women and children, advocating the adoption of a national Labor Code, and supporting education, hygiene, diet, housing, and recreation. Sentence would probably read better if you started with the perceived problems that the coalition wanted to fix and then the specific measures that they proposed to address these issues.
Changed to "The coalition advocated reform to education, hygiene, diet, housing, recreation, and working conditions. Their plans would include agricultural schools, a national Labor Code, a minimum wage, and industrial training centers; many of their promises would be realized after Vargas took power in 1930."
Who is Dantas? If he's not important enough to say who he is I would rewrite the sentence not to mention him.
Changed to below sentence.
Despite Pessoa's death being attributed to private and public affairs what is that supposed to mean?
His death was the result of affairs in both his private and political life. I changed "attributed to" to "a result of". (Changed to below)
But what does it mean "affairs in both his private and political life"? That's a really vague statement (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
One possible rephrase to address the above three issues and improve conciseness: On 26 July 1930, Vargas' running mate João Pessoa was assassinated, which imbued the opposition with a revolutionary climate and prompted Vargas and his allies to instigate a revolution on 3 October 1930.
Changed to this.
One thing that's not explained is how the assassination led to the revolution several months later.
It was a little over two months. I don't think it would serve to detail the planning and details of the run up to the revolution, which is secondary to the coup and the junta, but if you'd like to I can add information on it. So, now that I have reread your comment, I'll explain how the two events are related.
Had to reword a lot of the paragraph, but it has been changed to "On 26 July 1930, Vargas's running mate João Pessoa was assassinated. The federal government was implicated in the assassination, and in the National Congress Rio Grande do Sul Deputy Lindolfo Collor asked, "Mr. President, what have you done to the governor of Paraíba [Pessoa]?" The revolutionaries used Pessoa as a martyr, and the development of a revolution would proceed, eventually instigated on 3 October 1930."
This is definitely an improvement, but:
"The federal government was implicated in the assassination" Does this mean the government was somehow complicit in the assassination? If so it should be explained. If it was simply accused of involvement it should be rephrased to clarify.
"the development of a revolution would proceed" this phrase is too vague to be adding useful info to the reader
It would be an improvement to rephrase as: "Pessoa became a martyr to the opposition, eventually sparking a revolution on 3 October 1930." But I'd prefer it to be further clarified how the two parts of that sentence are connected. (t · c) buidhe 06:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to add more information to clear up the ties between Pessoa and the revolution, mainly how the federal government was blamed for the matter and how the opposition reacted to it.
Góes Monteiro—either explain who he is or just remove the sentence. I would keep Távora as he's discussed later in the article but it would be helpful to briefly state who he is.
Removed.
Many generals believed the President's continued stubbornness was useless what do you mean by "useless"?
I changed it to "not helping the situation."
Concerned about the military hierarchy what is meant by this?
Barreto was under Fragoso and Leal, so he logically wanted to not disrespect the chain of command.
Many were reluctant to sign it Many who? What did the ultimatum ask specifically and what was the threat if not accepted?
Removed that part. As for the ultimatum, there is a facsimile of it in the New York Times, excerpts of which used to be in the article. However, several sources speak of an ultimatum/manifesto/appeal/proclamation, with one of them speaking of manifestos being issued. Since none of them can be confirmed to be the same thing, I removed the text of the proclamation, but none of the sources actually describe the ultimatum. I thought just saying there was an ultimatum to the President would be enough, like an "x or else y," but I'll try to find more information if you'd like.
An ultimatum is indeed "X or else Y", which is why it's not very informative without saying what X and Y are. (t · c) buidhe 06:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
key members of the Army's general staff kind of vague, can we be more specific?
I'm not sure if you are looking for actual members, but I linked to the Army General Staff. I'd have to dig deeper to try and find those.
I think it might be better to name at least the most important members of the Army General Staff who are included in this sentence. (t · c) buidhe 06:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
For the above two issues, I have found the information about the Army's General Staff is cited from "Parada e desfile duma vida de voluntârio do Brazil." I can't access that and don't have any more information regarding support from the EME, so I have had to remove that. For the ultimatum, I've looked into Correio da Mania archives through the Biblioteca Nacional and can't find anything that doesn't contradict with the NYT proclamation and the limited information from other sources. I've had to remove that detail as well. 
(t · c) buidhe 07:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

FredModulars You still want the copyedit right? (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Yes, sorry for my delay. I'll deal with these issues soon, thank you. FredModulars (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


### Part 2
just from their faces, it became clear the situation was unsustainable and irreversible clear to whom? What does "unsustainable and irreversible" mean? If it means, "the president's position was untenable" that is a more clear wording.
Changed to that.
The president gathered those present and allowed them to leave Who are "those present"? His employees at the palace?
Yes, changed to "those present at the palace".
Who is Osvaldo Aranha?
Added that he was Vargas's longtime personal friend. He also held several political offices before and after the revolution, but I believe none at this point in time and none important to mention here.
Vargas, refusing to enter Rio de Janeiro until it was controlled by Rio Grande do Sul confused by this statement. Both Rio and Rio Grande do Sul are different Brazilian provinces? Why would one of them be controlling the other? (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Changed to "by troops from Rio Grande do Sul."