Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portugal/archive4

Media review

1. File:Flag of Portugal (official).svg: OK
2. File:Coat of arms of Portugal.svg: OK
3. File:Hino Nacional da Republica Portuguesa.ogg: copyvio - The performance of this composition dates to 2012 per the Commons page, therefore the claim in the licensing section that "it was first published before 1 March 1989" is incorrect and it is still considered copyrighted. Remember that compositions and performances carry separate copyrights.
4. File:EU-Portugal_(orthographic_projection).svg: needs alt text
5. File:EU-Portugal with islands circled.svg: needs alt text
6. File:Roman Temple Evora Portugal 02.jpg: OK
7. File:Estatua de Vimara Peres, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG: per here, the statue was erected in 1968 and its sculptor died in 1990, but this is not an issue as Portugal has FOP. You will have to add the C:Template:FoP-Portugal template to the Commons page, however.
8. File:D. Afonso Henriques - Compendio de crónicas de reyes (Biblioteca Nacional de España).png: OK
9. File:Portuguese Carracks off a Rocky Coast RMG BHC0705.tiff: do not use TIFF files for display in Wikipedia per c:COM:TIFF. Consider using this file or this file instead.
10. File:Coroação de D. João IV.png: needs alt text
11. File:Sessão das Cortes de Lisboa.jpg: this was not released under CC0 but is instead a scan of a 1922 painting by Brazilian painter Oscar Pereira da Silva (died 1939). Brazil is life + 70 so it's public domain there, therefore you should replace the license template with {{PD-art|PD-old-70-expired}}
12. File:Proclamação República Portuguesa.jpg: OK
13. File:Ondanks een verbod wilden leden van de Portugese Maoïstische beweging MRPP op 31, Bestanddeelnr 927-7289.jpg: OK
14. File:Portugal topographic map-en.svg: needs alt
15. File:Koppen-Geiger Map v2 PRT 1991–2020.svg: needs alt
16. File:Miradouro da Cascata do Arado.jpg: OK
17. File:António José Seguro 2026-04-21 (cropped).png: needs alt (also I'd personally suggest adding {{Extracted from|21.04.2026 - Reunião privada com o Presidente da República Portuguesa, António José Seguro - 55222243703.png}} to "other versions")
18. File:Luís Montenegro, 2025.06.26 (01) (cropped).jpg: this is not a work of the European Commission but rather of the European Council, which are separate EU institutions, so the given license template is incorrect. Looking at the copyright page for the source, it is stated that "Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted." Commons requires that all files be freely derivable, but this is vague on whether all derivative works would be permitted. I would recommend you select an image with a clearer permission such as this or this. Also needs alt.
19. File:Lisbon, Belém Palace.JPG: OK
20. File:Palácio de São Bento (Assemblée nationale) (9307363528).jpg: OK
21. File:Regions and Intermunicipal Communities of Portugal.svg: needs alt
22. File:Portuguese embassy map.png: needs alt
23. File:NRP Bartolomeu Dias F333 in Hernesaari as seen from Verkkokauppa in Helsinki, Finland, 2023 April.jpg: OK
24. File:Polícia Judiciária (Portugal) headquarters, Lisbon 04.jpg: OK
25. File:Lisboa June 2014-14a.jpg: OK
26. File:Ameixial - cork store (13532168205).jpg: needs alt
27. File:Vehículos en el puerto de Setúbal, Portugal, 2019-05-24, DD 01.jpg: needs alt
28. File:Alqueva dam.JPG: needs alt
29. File:Puente de Don Luis I, Oporto, Portugal, 2019-06-02, DD 29-31 HDR.jpg: needs alt
30. File:Genísio04.jpg: OK
31. File:Universidad de Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 16.JPG: needs alt
32. File:Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra em 2025 - Foto 02.jpg: needs alt
33. File:Feira de Barcelos (05Set) 040.jpg: unclear? Per c:COM:TOYS, small statues or models of animals do indeed receive copyright protection and the Barcelos Cockerels in the photo do seem to fit into that. The FoP of Portugal would furthermore not apply as these aren't permanently fixed to a particular location, so it is possible that one would need the permission of the manufacturer. However, these particular models do not appear especially distinct from other Barcelos Cockerels. If we assume that the design of the specific roosters in the photo do not warrant separate copyright from the general design of the rooster, then we need to know when that general design of the Barcelos rooster model first originated. According to the best source I could find on the matter,^[1] the originator of the modern commercial clay Barcelos rooster with decorations is disputed between João Domingos da (Silva) Rocha (a.k.a. Domingos Côto; died 1959) or the pair Emídio do Parral and Francisco do Monte (death dates unknown). Nevertheless, this same source states that these roosters were available at least by September 1931. Given the disputed circumstances of its origin, I am willing to believe c:Template:PD-anon-70-EU applies to the model, but others may disagree.
34. File:Lagos40 kopie.jpg: OK
35. File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: OK
36. File:Camões, por Fernão Gomes.jpg: OK
37. File:Amalia Rodrigues, Bestanddeelnr 922-1813 (cropped).jpg: OK
38. File:Entrudo de Vila Boa de Ousilhão 26.jpg: needs alt text
39. File:Funchal (Madeira, Portugal), Rua Dr. Fernão de Ornelas, Nata 7 - Fernão Ornelas -- 2025 -- 1205.jpg: OK
40. File:Cristiano Ronaldo Portugal.jpg: needs alt text

―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Great investigative work on the Barcelos Cockerels, Howardcorn33. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@GumballNine1Nine additional media review:

• File:A Portuguesa.ogg (replacing File:Hino Nacional da Republica Portuguesa.ogg): OK
• File:Luís Montenegro September 2025.jpg (replacing File:Luís Montenegro, 2025.06.26 (01) (cropped).jpg): OK
• File:Desfile 12.jpg (replacing File:Feira de Barcelos (05Set) 040.jpg): OK

Finally, I forgot to mention that Portuguese FoP law still requires attribution to the sculptor, so I believe you should add something along the lines of "1968 statue by Barata Feyo (1899-1990)." as a second sentence to the description. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The new photo, from the Senhora da Agonia festivities, seems misplaced as there's the Holidays and festivities content bellow. Don't see any issue regarding maintaining an image of the Galo of Barcelos, maybe this one File:Thornton2012-053 (8114900101).jpg? Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned the potential copyright pitfalls above, but it's inconclusive. Personally, I wouldn't withhold it from passing FA for having image of the Galo of Barcelos. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, Barcelos' city hall owns all commercial rights of the Galo de Barcelos, so this image of a replica of the Galo in a square of the city should have no problem: File:Barcelos L1180558 (25188818226).jpg. What's your view? Tuesp1985 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tuesp1985: Where did you receive the idea that Barcelos city hall owns the commercial rights to the Galo of Barcelos?

As for the sculpture itself, given that it appears to be permanently fixed in a public place, I would say FoP-Portugal does indeed allow it (although, we would need to give credit to the author). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Found this news from 2021: ""Galo de Barcelos" is already a registered trademark owned by the municipality.", with the report adding "The Barcelos Rooster is now a nationally registered trademark in the name of the municipality and prevents third parties from "using any identical or similar sign on identical products or services"." Tuesp1985 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Trademarks are separate from copyright and are therefore not a limitation for our purposes per c:COM:Trademarks. Given that the article makes no mention of copyright, I believe it's safe to assume that copyright is expired. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am a layperson when it comes to copyright law, but the article appears to attribute the modern design of the Barcelos Cockerel to Manuel Gonçalves Torres, who died in 1987, and to date it to the 1950s. In any case, in response to Tuesp1985's concerns about the new image, it depicts traditional Portuguese clothing and filigree, including the Coração de Viana, another well-known Portuguese symbol. Personally, I think it's a better choice than an image showing a row of similar Barcelos Cockerels. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I meant about the being a registered trade mark, sorry about the confusion. About the image, maybe this one is better: File:Viana do Castelo, Portugal (4922364383).jpg, and instead add to the caption "Women using traditional clothes from Viana do Castelo region". I'll await feedback. Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The women in the image are facing to the right, so under MOS:PORTRAIT the image would need to be placed on the left. However, doing so would displace the title of the next subsection. I would make that change if the people in the image were facing to the left. About the caption, I'll keep it unchanged as well per MOS:CAPOBVIOUS. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine, but on the caption, I would remove the Romaria de Nossa Senhora da Agonia link and put something like this: "In Viana do Castelo, women traditionally wear family heirlooms during festivities." Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Howardcorn33, done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@GumballNine1Nine: I consider the media review passed. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Welcome to FAC. It looks like you are relatively new to Wikipedia... Congratulations on improving such a huge and important article, quite the feat! This is this your first nomination here at Featured Articles, correct? I ask because that means the source check needs to be a little bit more detailed than normal.

  Thanks for your kind comments, Noleander! And yes, this is my first nomination of an article at Featured Articles, although I've previously made a successful nomination within Featured Content for a picture. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Accessibility: The guideline WP:ACCESSIBILITY says that WP articles should be available to blind or visually impaired readers. Within that, MOS:COLOR says "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information ... Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text ..." See also WP:COLORMAP. The Climate map used in the article is not compliant: it uses color-coding as the only way for readers to connect the legend to the regions in the image. Fortunately, the image is SVG format, so it is an easy matter to edit the image with an app like Inkscape and add text labels over the regions in the map. Let me know if you want instructions on how to do that.
  • Contrast with image Regions and Intermunicipal Communities of Portugal.svg which already has the (correct) text overlays on the map, in addition to colors.
  • Map Portuguese embassy map.png has color issues, but may be okay since there are only 2 colors involved, and they are rather distinct. See WP:COLORMAP for guidance.

Done. (Updated foreign relations map) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Alt text: most images have excellent alt text. The alt text of Amália Rodrigues photo is missing. Sometimes alt text can be omitted if the caption is appropriate. See MOS:ALTINCAPTION but even that says the atl text should be "|alt=Refer to caption" if caption is sufficient.

  I've double checked, and the image of Amália Rodrigues already has alt text. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The template you are using {{CSS image crop}} requires the alt text field "Alt". You are using lowercase "alt". Noleander (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Multiple adjacent citation superscripts: "... in European politics and culture.[56][57][58][59] " Two or three superscripts in a row is pretty common, but if you start getting to four, it is time to look into WP:CITEBUNDLE. Bundling will keep all the cites, but display a single superscript footnote to the readers. Four consecutive superscript numbers is ugly and interrupts the reader. It is easy to convert to bundling if you use the bullet technique described in WP:CITEBUNDLE. Personally I use the {{Multiref}} bundling technique, but that takes a bit more work. Although, now that I look closer, it looks like the article is already set up to use sfn/harvnb/sfnref style cties, so shifting to use {{Multiref}} should be easy.

  Done. Thanks for the advice. Moxy had very kindly demonstrated {{Multiref}} in the article before, but there were no short citations at the time, so I didn't realize that the template was incompatible with {{sfnp}} (an unfortunate mistake, now that the article has almost 400 instances of it.). I've eliminated the rows of four superscripts by distributing the citations throughout the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Most cites do not have quotes from sources. But a few do e.g.
  • Reilly (1998), pp. 80-81, Chapter 3: Toward a Concert of Christian Princes: "In October he invited Afonso Henriques to a conference at Zamora. The Leonese monarch wished not ... " and " Casimiro (2020), pp. 1–17, "In the Early Modern age, Portugal was among the first European..."

What is the rationale for including quotes in a few cites? Normally, quotes are not included. I've seen quotes used effectively in a few articles, usually when the material the cite is supporting is controversial, and the quote prevents future edit warring, and helps future editors. Is that why the quotes are used in this article? Quotes in cites are not prohibited, but WP:FA expects very strong consistency throughout the cites, and it seems odd to have quotes in a few.

Yes, you nailed it. I added the quotes to prevent edit warring, which had already happened on the article a few weeks ago. As the article's recent changes concerning the first quotation show, its inclusion was warranted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Publisher = "Self-published" e.g. " Statistics Portugal (9 August 2024). "Statistics Portugal - Data Base - Indicator 0008856". self-published. ..." The markup is:

          |title=Statistics Portugal - Data Base - Indicator 0012437
         |author=Statistics Portugal
         |author-link=Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Portugal)
         |publisher=self-published
         |url=https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&indOcorrCod=0008856&contexto=bd&selTab=tab2&xlang=en

That cite (and others like it) doesn't seem quite right. The "author" field should be empty (meaning unknown/anonymous); and the "publisher" (and/or "website") field should be Instituto Nacional de Estatística (Portugal). There is no need to display "Self-published" ... I've never seen the phrase Self-published" before in WP cites. Maybe the phrase is okay, but to me it means an individual author published a work themselves (with the implication that they could not find a reputable publisher).

• Continuing the above comment: It looks like there are about 40 cites where the author is unknown/anonymous, and in most of those, the article inappropriately uses the "author" field to hold the publisher name (when "author" should be empty); and uses the "publisher" field to contain "self-published" (when "publisher" should hold the publisher name). If you look at template documenation for {{Cite web}} or {{cite report}} you'll see they are pretty clear that the "author" field is supposed to be a human being. The template documentations says: "To cite a report with no credited author ... [use] ... |author = <!-- not stated --> "

• Continuing the above: if you are uncertain how to display sources that have an unknown author (that is, the "author" field is empty or missing in the cite template) you can look at example FA articles. One example is Bridge#Unknown_author which uses the {{sfnref}} template to handle anonymous sources.

  Thanks for giving the reference to the article. On the "author" field, perhaps I'm mistaken, and if so, I'll promptly make those changes. However, the documentation for both {{Cite web}} and {{Cite report}} states in the description of that field that it may be used for an organizational author: "author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person; for the latter, prefer the use of 'first' and 'last'..." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think that guidance you quote is not quite applicable. An organization like Statistics Portugal is, I presume, a rather large bureaucracy. That guidance is addressing the situation where Statistics Portugal assembles a team of, say, four people to write a report. Then the name of that (small) team could be placed in the "author" field. Does the source identify an authorship team (or committee) by name? If not, the article should use the anonymous author approach (i.e. leave author field empty) that is used in many Featured Articles. Noleander (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• P vs PP issue p. 12,28. You can run a tool called "Show Ref Check" to find such errors.

FYI: the "Show Ref Check" tool is at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js Noleander (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• No need to restate chapter name in the short cite: e.g.
  • Short cite: Joor (2016), p. 57, Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland from a Dutch Historical Perspective
  • Linked source: Joor, Johan (26 January 2016). "Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland from a Dutch Historical Perspective". In Planert, Ute (ed.). Napoleon's empire : European politics in global perspective. War, Culture and Society, 1750–1850. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

The long source contains all the necessary information. In the short cite, you only need the page # 57. The chapter name & number (" Chapter 4: The Napoleonic Period in Holland..") should not be repeated in the short cite. This issue is in several cites.

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Page # typo: pp. p111–p118.

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Uniform capitalization style of source titles. Cites use a mixutre:
  • Title case: "Epigenetic Effects of Healthy Foods and Lifestyle Habits from the Southern European Atlantic Diet Pattern: A Narrative Review"
  • Sentence case "Ocupação do Litoral do Alentejo, Portugal: passado e presente"

WP:CITEVAR etc say that article should use a uniform capitalization style (and should ignore the cap. style sources use for themselves). It is okay to use one cap style for book titles & another for journal article titles.

FYI: there is a tool that will ensure that all source titles use same capt style: User:ZKang123/TitleCaseConverter. Noleander (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• That is all for now. Ping me when you've considered the above comments. Noleander (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for the comments, Noleander. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Second pass

• Lead section: has a lot of blue wikilinks. MOS:LEADLINK says "Too many links can make the lead hard to read. In technical articles that use uncommon terms, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary. ... Most Featured Articles contain about 12 to 25 links in the lead, with an average of about 1.5 links per sentence, or one link for every 16 words." The Lead of Portugal looks a bit like a WP:SEAOFBLUE with far more than 25 links ... maybe 40? MOS:LEADLINK says "technical" articles may need more links, but this is a geography article, not one on quantum physics. Removing blue links from the lead is not too harmful to readers: they will see the same links later, in the body text.

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Wording: " A participant in the Age of Discovery, the kingdom made ... " Is there a better word than "participant"?

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Portugal is part of multiple international organisations ... " Member of?

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Portugal was used to refer ... " .. was referred to ... ?

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Neanderthals roamed the southwestern Iberian peninsula until 37,000 years ago, and a hominin tooth has been found at the Nova ... " Is hominin before or after the Neanderthals? Are Neanderthals part of hominins?

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Portugal was devastated by the Black Death, as with the rest of Europe. " maybe "as was the rest of Europe"

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Caption: "The Portuguese Carracks Off a Rocky Coast painting displays Portuguese vessels of the Discovery Age during the 16th century." It might help readers to add some links into image captions, which is a permitted exception to the "don't duplicate links" rule. E.g. here Age of Discovery.

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power, and by the mid-16th century ... " That is a rather important statement, it is just casually tossed in there as a preface. Consider elaborating, at least with a footnote.
  • Also: was it truly the first global colonial power? I suspect that colonialism has been going on for 1000s of years. Maybe qualify with "European colonial power" or similar.
    • Done. Yes, it was the first colonial power according to the sources. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried to access the sources for "first and last" fact, and could read one of the three (L'Estoile) but I could not find word "first" or "last" in that source. The abstract for source Schriffl does not include "first" or "last", but it does sort of say it was the last European colonial power. Can you post quotes here from those sources that clearly state that P was the first colonial power in the world? And the last colonial power in the world? Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, here is the relevant quote from page 12 of Veracini: "The most violent colonisers are those who cannot rely on favourable terms of trade – they seek tribute. Portugal was the first and the last explicitly colonial power; it defended its colonial empire until the bitter end because it would have been unable to profit from neocolonial arrangements." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for that quote. Questions: (a) are there any reliable 2ndary source that say that there are still colonial powers in existence in the 21st century? (b) Would readers benefit from some elaboration of what "explicitly colonial power" means? In other words what was the source intending to convey with the words "explicit" and "colonial powers"? (c) If there are sources that say colonialism is still happening in the 21st century, should the article include that fact somehow alongside the "...last colonial power" so readers get a fuller picture? Noleander (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

On question a) and c): According to the best source I could find on the matter, colonialism ended during the 20th century, after its precise meaning had been defined at the Bandung Conference in 1955, according to the article: "Bandung recognised the particular, racialised nature of colonialism that remained from the international model of the nineteenth century, which had judged (and continued to argue) that certain territories were unfit for self-rule on a racialised standard of civilisation grounds. It was this racialised legitimation of the rights to sovereignty that was the major norm to be overcome for the post-colonial world. This separated the question of colonialism from the question of Soviet involvement in Eastern Europe, in which states maintained their own domestic communist parties that were not excluded from participation in the socialist world on racial grounds in the same way that the post-colonial states had been. This framed the opposition to racial discrimination as central to the post-colonial world’s opposition to, and definition of, colonialism. It also made ‘self-determination’ the only legitimate model of international sovereignty, and, importantly for the pluralist post-colonial coalition, self-determination need not necessarily be expressed in the form of a parliamentary democracy but could rather be expressed through the ruling cadre of the state having some form of organic link to ‘the people’, be they elected or not". On question b, the source does not elaborate on what it means by 'explicit'. My understanding is that it refers to Portugal being the first and last widely recognized country to hold territories with the kind of colonial dynamic discussed in the previous article. However, I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on all of this in a country article; a link to the Colonialism article should be sufficient. Over to you, Noleander. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In 1498, Vasco da Gama reached ... " There are four consecutive sentence that start with a year "In 14xx ..." (or similar). Best to vary wording. Two in a row maybe okay, but not four.

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Link to Port. wikipedia: 1 December The red followed by a mysterious "pt" footnote may confuse many readers. Suggest use an alternative technique, there are a few - see H:FOREIGNLINK, that provide a direct blue link to the Port. WP article.

  According to H:FOREIGNLINK: "The best practice is to use the template {{interlanguage link}} which gives both a redlinked English link and a German blue link, but hides the German link if the English redlink turns blue when the article is created.". However, if the red links are a sticking point, I'm more than willing to follow your suggestion GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• ".. with a lot of social and political tension... " phrase "a lot of" is a bit vulgar. Consider a more professional wording.

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• " Portugal comprises a mainland territory located on the... " Two things: (a) "mainland" doesnt need to be stated, I think by default land is presumed to be on the mainland, and only islands need to be qualified. (b) "territory" is not ideal in this context since it also can mean a specific kind of colony/protectorate/province. Consider a synonym.

  Done. Removed the word 'territory' and kept 'mainland', since that is the terminology used by the source and it also supports the corresponding reference to mainland Portugal in the lead, in line with MOS:LEAD. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The country covers a total area of 156,597 km2 (60,462 sq mi), more than two-fifths of which consists of territorial sea and internal waters." I've never seen a country's size stated as including ocean areas. Unless that is a WP convention, I would expect a wording like "The country covers xxxxx km2 and yyyyy km2 of territorial waters."

  This issue was raised by Whonting during the peer review, when the Geography section had too many statistics, so I removed some of them, including the separate figures for land and water area. As for the country's size including ocean areas, this is explained by the source discussing the legal status of Portuguese territory: "Within its fundamental principles, the 1976 Constitution devotes Article 5 to 'territory', identifying the country's geographical basis in both its land component—the area defined on the European continent and the archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira—and its maritime component, comprising territorial waters and the seabed." That is the basis for including ocean areas. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources for 156K km2 "total area" seem to be Portuguese government sources, which are essentially primary sources. Are there any 2ndary sources that have that figure for "total area"? I think a lot of countries try to influence fishing rights by making exaggerated claims to waters, but WP editors don't need to take those values blindly. The {{Infobox country}} template defines field "area_km2" as "Land area of the country in square kilometers". (emphasis added). By emphasizing the 156K figure, the article gives the impression of being written by fanboys of Portugal  :-) WP editors need to rely more heavily on independent, secondary sources. I see List of countries and dependencies by area repeats the 156K figure (again sourced to Portuguese government) but that list also identifies a UN document available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/dyb_2022/ - and that UN source uses the 92K figure. CIA FactBook also gives 92K for "total area" archived here. To be clear: the article can state the 156K figure, but the body text should attribute that value to the Portuguese govmt; and the 92K figure should be given equal billing, based on secondary sources (such as UN and CIA). Questions: Has the WP Geography project every had an RfC on this question of creating a uniform WP-wide definition of "total area" of countries? What do reliable sources other than Portuguese government give for "total area" of the country? Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the first question: no, not that I'm aware of, on the second question yes, there's a secondary source that says the following: "The dimensional characterization of maritime spaces is carried out on the basis of their geospatial breadth. The geographical reference point for measuring the breadth of maritime spaces is the baseline. In general, this line follows the orientation and shape of the coastline and consists of two variants: normal baselines and straight baselines. Normal baselines coincide with the coastline at the lowest low-water mark. Straight baselines connect conspicuous points on the coast and adjacent islands, in accordance with rules defined in UNCLOS. Portugal defined its baselines in Decree-Law No. 495/85 of 29 November 1985.

Internal waters are located landward of the straight baselines and may be classified as maritime internal waters or riverine internal waters. The geographical area corresponding to riverine internal waters is 654 km². The area corresponding to maritime internal waters is approximately 6,508 km². This figure is equivalent to about 7% of the national territory.

The territorial sea lies seaward of the baselines and may extend up to 12 nautical miles from them. The area of Portugal’s territorial sea, which extends up to 12 nautical miles, is approximately 50,957 km², of which 16,460 km² correspond to the mainland, 23,663 km² to the Azores archipelago, and 10,834 km² to the Madeira archipelago. This figure is equivalent to about 55% of the national territory.

According to UNCLOS, in the territorial sea, coastal states extend, with certain exceptions, their full sovereignty. This sovereignty extends to the airspace above it, as well as to the seabed and subsoil of this sea." (page 113) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I understand that Portugal, by law, defines its sovereign territory to include a lot of ocean waters, and they publish an area of 156K. My questions are about how this article should present the "area" of Portugal to readers. Yes, the article should certainly mention the 156K figure published by the P. government. But there are two issues: (a) The Sidebar template documentation says that the "area_km2" field should contain "Land area of the country in square kilometers". Those kind of guidelines are important, so that readers of the encyclopedia can compare apples-to-apples. Do you see that definition of "area_km2" in template documentation? (b) Government laws/policies/publications can be biased. The encyclopedia also needs to present other viewpoints (per WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:PROPORTION, WP:RS, etc). Do you agree that there are some secondary sources, unaffiliated with Portugal, that state that the "total area" of Portugal is around 92K? Noleander (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Area: "km2" I'm pretty sure WP:MOSNUM says to use km² ... that is, km{{sup|2}} .

  All instances of powers of unit symbols are already superscripted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Raises more questions than it answers: "Wildfires remain a serious challenge in Portugal, where 99% of the cases reported by law enforcement in 2024 were of unknown origin." That seems hard to believe. Is it arson? Firebugs? Lightning? Cigarettes? How in the world in 2026 could a country only know how 1% of wild fires start?

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Citation error on cite "Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo – Direção de Planeamento, Estudos e Estatística (2025), p. 2. " Error message is: "Harv error: link from CITEREFAgência_para_a_Integração,_Migrações_e_Asilo_–_Direção_de_Planeamento,_Estudos_e_Estatística2025 doesn't point to any citation."

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Using organization/publisher name in "author" field (see details of this issue above in pass 1): "Eurostat (9 April 2026). "Population on 1 January by age, sex and broad group of citizenship". Eurostat. doi:10.2908/MIGR_POP2CTZ. Retrieved 25 April 2026." Error: Missing first name for: Eurostat; Missing archive link;

  Done. The archive link is missing because the page is incompatible with archiving, which results in a broken archived version. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm spent. Ping me when you've considered the above, and I'll continue. Noleander (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi there. On the first global colonial power issue, Portugal by the 1500s had colonies in basically all continents, the Americas, Africa and Asia. Other previous empires did't achieved that global scale. Also, regarding the wildfires and the line you are referring, I agree that it's rather misleading. According to the latest reports, 84% of wilfires are caused by "arson", which includes illegal use of fire as well as uncontrolled use of fire. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding: "Portugal by the 1500s had colonies in basically all continents, the Americas, Africa and Asia. Other previous empires did't achieved that global scale." That's fine. But the article should provide that sort of clarity & detail. Noleander (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. I hope this has addressed your concerns so far, Noleander GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking good. I have two follow-up questions regarding "total area" value and the "first and last colonial power". Details above. Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. I hope those answers satisfy your questions, Noleander. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I still have a queasy feeling that the article is not as neutral and objective as a Featured Article should be. Two issues I see:

• The article misleads readers on the size of the country. "The country covers a total area of 156,597 km2 (60,462 sq mi), more than two-fifths of which consists of territorial sea and internal waters." That figure comes from the government of Portugal, and includes about 1/3 ocean water. Readers of the article want to know the land area. Any interpretations of area that include vast amounts of ocean should be presented in a parenthetical manner. Several independent, secondary sources state Portugal's area to be 92K km² (and the InfoBox now shows that value, thanks for that change). But the body text (green quote above) still cherry-picks a government figure designed to enlarge the country's territorial claims. This article is a geography article, not a mouthpiece for the Portuguese government. This could easily be remedied by re-casting the green sentence above as: "The country's land area is 92K km², although Portuguese law defines the country's size as 156K km² which includes about 64K km² of ocean waters"
• The article misleads readers on colonialism: "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power...". Although the Veracini reliable source has "Portugal was the first and the last explicitly colonial power ..." the article drops the word "explicitly" and omits the fact that the source is using a limited definition of colonialism (namely "modern colonialism" which is European colonialism from about 1400 to 1980). Other reliable sources define colonialism as reaching back to antiquity, and extend it into the present time (e.g. China and the Uyghurs). Other sources state that Spain was the first European colonial power. This can be easily remedied by recasting the text to: "Historian L. Veracini states that Portugal was the first and the last explicitly colonial power..." or "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power in the era of modern European colonialism" or "Portugal's colonial empire lasted longer that most European nations: from 14xx (location A) to 19xx (location B) ... " or similar.

Because of those two issues (and the apparent reluctance of the nominator to remedy them ... see conversation above) I'm not confident that the article is properly respecting WP policies and guidelines such as:

• WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY - Relying on governmental law/policy for the size of the country, rather than independent geographers
• WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES - Based on the above issues, a reader might get the impression that editorial choices are not being made in an objective and neutral fashion. The above examples are two sentences out of several hundred in the article: are other sentences also skewed?

I will not support or oppose this nomination. But I don't feel comfortable with the accuracy and neutrality of the material as it stands today. That said, the article has strong foundation and a lot of excellent work has gone into it. Noleander (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Noleander, all of those issues have now been addressed. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I have also double-checked the rest of the sources to see whether any others were similarly skewed in relation to the sentences they support. I did not find any comparable issues elsewhere in the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You also raised the point about relying on governmental law or policy sources for the country's size rather than on independent geographers. All governmental sources previously used for area figures have now been replaced with secondary sources. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Third pass

• Wording? The high fish consumption in Portugal is due to tradition and cultural roots ... and geography which makes fisheries and the consumption of seafood products extremely valuable. This reads like two separate thoughts merged into one sentence. It begins as a list of reasons why fish consumption is high; but ends with "fisheries are valuable" ... which may be true, but is not a reason why people eat a lot of fish. And I do not understand the final statement the consumption of seafood products [is] extremely valuable (paraphrased). Maybe put a period after "geography" then reword after that?

  The text now reads: "The high fish consumption in Portugal is due to tradition and cultural roots, politics, dynamics of the fish market system, and geography. This strong seafood consumption makes fisheries and seafood products highly valuable.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Wording: ... two-thirds of Portugal's energy consumption was supplied from abroad ... A bit confusing since 100% of the act of consuming was within the country. Maybe ... two-thirds of Portugal's energy supply was imported .. or ... two-thirds of Portugal's energy was imported .. or ... one-third of Portugal's energy supply was generated domestically .. or similar.

  Done. The sentence now reads: "As of 2023, two-thirds of Portugal's energy supply was imported, representing the eleventh-highest level of energy dependency in the European Union". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Past tense? Portugal has a population of 11,424,031, of whom 9,826,492 are Portuguese nationals and the remainder are foreign residents at 1,597,539, as of 2025. Year 2025 was last year, so maybe "had" instead of "have". I'm not sure if WP has manual of style advice on this or not. But as the years go by, present tense "has" will become more confusing.

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• ISBN formatting not consistent: ISBN 978-184-6157-08-0 and ISBN 9781035359523 Should be more uniform: use dashes in all or none of the ISBNs.

  Done. I've added dashes to all the ISBNs. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Inconsistent book IDs ... ISBN 9780226148472. LCCN 2009017508. OCLC 593325476.. This is not a hard FA requirement, simply an observation. Book ID numbering systems include ISBN, LCCN, OCLC. Some editors include multiple (if available); others include only one. I don't think WP has a strong rule one way or another. Personally, I see no benefit to having more than one (readers can find the book from one: adding more has no utility). So, my rule is "Display ISBN only; but if no ISBN exists, then one of LCCN or OCLC". But that is just my preference. Not required for FA.

  As you said, this is mostly a matter of personal preference. I usually add as much citation info as I can find for the reader's convenience. Even if it doesn't add much practical value, I find that including multiple IDs makes it slightly easier to locate the book. I followed the same approach with ISSN numbers by including both the print ISSN and the eISSN when available. That said, I'm happy to follow your style if it becomes a sticking point. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Wording ... Portugal set about to remove the early aspects of socialism from the revolution period and move towards neoliberalism. Kind of confusing. What "revolution period"? The Carnation Revolution? I thought Carnation Revolution was a movement toward democracy? or is " the revolution period" from before Carnation rev? And what does "early" signify here? Can "early" be removed? or made more precise e.g. "dismantle socialist policies" or similar?.

  I've updated the sentence. It now reads: "After the transition to democracy, in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, under the influence of a group of economists who had studied in the United States, Portugal set about dismantling socialist policies from that period and moving towards neoliberalism". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Source quality: sources seem to be high quality and mostly academic.

• References/citation formatting: other than ISBN hyphen issue above, formatting is good quality.

• Prose quality: Other than a few minor issues noted above, prose quality is professional and engaging.

• Leaning support. Ping me when the above have been considered. Noleander (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Hopefully this takes care of what you pointed out, Noleander. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support on prose quality, MOS compliance, and cite/source formatting. I have not done an image review or source review. Noleander (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

From Tim riley

Booking my place. I'll reread the article and, I hope, comment here today or tomorrow. Tim riley talk 14:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

Not much from me. I reviewed the article at GAN and thought it excellent. I said then and still think it is brave to try to cover a huge subject like this in a single article. The more detailed subsidiary articles are certainly a good thing and I think the nominator has got the essence of the topic into less than 8,000 words, which strikes me as very good going indeed. Little to add since. I've made a couple of minor tweaks (spelling and MoS). It doesn't bother me but there are multiple duplicate links that we could do without:

• Iberian
• Visigoths
• Suebi
• Minho
• Douro
• Ferdinand I of Portugal
• temperate maritime
• Selvagens Islands
• mainland Portugal
• president of Portugal
• constitution of Portugal (twice)
• Savage Islands
• Terceira Island
• Guarda Nacional Republicana
• Portuguese financial crisis
• Algarve (twice)
• Lisbon metropolitan area
• First Republic Estado Novo
• OECD
• Madeira (twice)
• Portuguese language
• Portuguese poetry
• Age of Discovery
• fado
• Carnation Revolution
• Azores
• São Miguel Island
• Lisbon

It would be nice to see these duplicates pruned, but they don't stop me assessing the article as of FA standard. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I think it will grace our front page and be of inestimable value to our visitors.Very happy to support. – Tim riley talk 17:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review, Tim, and thank you for supporting the article for FA. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose by Jens

• Portugal's exclusive economic zone extends 1,727,408 km2 (666,956 mi2), making it the largest in the European Union and the tenth-largest in the world. – I am surprised about this claim. In our own list (Exclusive economic zone), the country is on place 21 worldwide, not the tenth-largest?

  I have checked where the tenth-largest in the world claim came from. The article states that "Portugal boasts the largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the EU and ranks as the 10th largest in the world, spanning over 1.7 million km².". It cites two sources for this. One of them, source 41, does repeat the claim that Portugal's EEZ extends over more than 1.7 million km²: "Portugal’s maritime region encompasses three sub-zones, continental Portugal, the Azores and Madeira, together covering an area of more than 1.7 million km².". That source, in turn, appears to rely on another source (source 12) where the tenth-largest in the world claim may have originated. However, that source describes Portugal as probably having the 10th-largest EEZ only if the proposed enlargement of its maritime area succeeds: "With the convention on the Law of the Sea, mainland Portugal, with an emerged area of 89,015 km², extended its jurisdiction to an area of 327,667 km². However, benefiting from Madeira and Azores archipelagos, emerged areas respectively with 801 km² and 2,346 km², the total Portuguese EEZ extends up to 1,727,408 km², i.e. about 1.6 % area of the Atlantic Ocean and approximately 1.25% of the entire oceanic area under countries jurisdiction. Mainly due to the Portuguese islands, EEZ of Portugal is the largest in Europe (although not the largest from Europe since, due to the overseas territories, French EEZ, with more than 11 million square kilometers, and the United Kingdom, with nearly 4 million square kilometers, are clearly larger). If Portugal succeeds in the claiming to the enlargement of this area, the territory under national jurisdiction will be expanded to 3,027,408 km², i.e., will extend over an area 32.8 times greater than the whole emerged territory, 2.9% of the Atlantic Ocean and more than 2% of the entire ocean area under the jurisdiction of countries, i.e., probably the 10th largest EEZ in the world, after Brazil." Since the 2024 article still uses the same figure for Portugal's EEZ area, it can be assumed that this enlargement has not occurred. I will therefore remove the part stating that Portugal has the tenth-largest in the world EEZ. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Despite the country's size, Portugal exhibits a diverse array of geomorphological landscapes as a result of its long geological evolution, shaped by two Wilson cycles, its position relative to plate boundaries, and climatic variability that produced distinct morphoclimatic zones. – This doesn't really say much. Try to be more concrete. "Despite the country's size" – despite its large or small size? I think this part is not needed. Does this mean other countries hadn't had a long geological evolution? You never even talk about geologic history anywhere? I suggest to remove this sentence, or replace it with concrete facts.

  The source from which I added that claim to the article states the following: "Despite small area, the Portuguese territory presents a great diversity of geomorphological landscapes. This diversity is mainly due to a long and complex geological evolution that includes two Wilson cycles, to the central geographical position the territory had regarding the plate boundaries in both cycles and to the climate variability responsible for the distinct morphogenetic environments.". I will rewrite the sentence to include your suggestions. However, I don't see how the sentence Despite the country’s small area, Portugal exhibits a diverse array of geomorphological landscapes as a result of its long geological evolution, shaped by two Wilson cycles, its position relative to plate boundaries, and climatic variability that produced distinct morphoclimatic zones implies any conclusion about the geography of other countries. It is not comparing Portugal with any other country; it is simply stating that Portugal has a wide variety of geomorphological landscapes despite its small area. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. I swapped that sentence for some more concrete details on Portugal's geography. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Continental Portugal is over three-quarters forests and the remaining is agricultural. – This can't possibly be true and is not supported by the source either.

  You're right. The source states, in Portuguese, that "forest is the main land use in Portuguese territory and wildlands cover about 70% of the country". The first pie chart shows the country is 24% agricultural and 5% settlements. I've corrected the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• and the predominance of agricultural land use further accentuates the torrential nature of the river regime during periods of intense precipitation – not sure what this means

  I've changed the sentence. It now reads: "The small size of the catchments, the slopes' steepness, and deforestation accentuates the torrential regime of the rivers during periods of intense precipitation causing erosion problems and floods". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Portugal has a diverse variety of regional climates for a country of its size – Does this statement include the islands? If so, is the total geographic extent considered, or just the land area (in which case, I don't think the statement makes any sense)?

  It's just Portugal's land area, since the source doesn't cover climates over the oceans. Curiously, until recently oceans were ignored in climate classification, unlike land areas. The first modern, detailed map showing climatic types for both oceans and continents — calculated using the revised Köppen system — was only released in 2024. There's still a gap in the understanding of climates over the oceans. Thankfully, I've found a source that covers this topic and I'll add some info from it to the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• the trajectory of a polar front – why "a polar front", not "the polar front"?

  It was a typo, it now reads "the polar front". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• the influence of the stable atmospheric conditions that bring milder weather during the summer. – this is quite unspecific and I'm not sure what it means. You get stable atmospheric conditions whenever the polar front moves away? Also, if the summer weather is "mild", and Portugal is one of the warmest countries in Europe, how is "mild" defined?

  I've updated the sentence. It now reads: "When the polar front moves northward, Portugal comes under the influence of the Azores High bringing atmospheric stability during the summer". Hope it's clearer now. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Portugal is one of the warmest countries in Europe – Shouldn't this general information (and the temperatures) right at the beginning of the climate section?

  I've removed that sentence. In the source it's stated that "Portugal is also cooler than the rest of Mediterranean Europe, on average, as the larger and deeper Atlantic Ocean absorbs energy. Therefore, Portuguese summers are more similar to those along the central and northern California coast, while the remainder of the region is more similar to the Baja Peninsula of Mexico." (p. 288). GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Climate change is projected to raise average temperatures in Portugal by as much as 4 °C (39.2 °F) by 2100 relative to the 1970–2010 average, with likely consequences for the country's energy supply, particularly by diminishing electricity generation capacity. – As if energy supply were the only, or even the most serious, consequence of climate change in Portugal?

  I should've put more thought into that sentence when I wrote it. I've updated the sentence, it now reads: Climate change is projected to raise average temperatures in Portugal by as much as 3–4 °C (37.4–39.2 °F) by 2100 relative to the 1990s–2010s average, with impacts in water, ecosystem, agriculture, health, and security. The updated temperature values for Portugal come from sources covering the mainland, Madeira, and the Azores. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• the 3rd most diverse hotspot of flora in the world. – I would be super careful with superlatives. I don't think this is generally true, and it strongly depends on how it is measured, so I fear this is misleading at best, and probably just wrong. I do not think the Mediterranean Basin has more species than the Andes region, for example.

  I've removed that claim. The new sentence is: Portugal is located on the Mediterranean basin, a biodiversity hotspot. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Eucalyptus, cork oak, and maritime pine together make up 71% of the total forested area of continental Portugal – Eucalyptus is an agricultural crop imported from Australia. These are plantations without any conservation value. Mentioning them in a section called "Biodiversity" is quite misleading (Eucalyptus is in fact a major problem for biodiversity).

  Several sources list Eucalyptus as part of Portugal's forests: 1 2 3 4. Although, as you pointed out, it's considered a non-native species, I'll be sure to mention that in the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The sentence now reads: "Native species such as holm oak, cork oak, stone pine, and maritime pine make up 72% of the total forested area of continental Portugal". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Portugal has 73% of the freshwater fish species endemic to the Iberian Peninsula, the highest proportion for any region in Europe. – This does not make any sense. Of course, a country like Germany will have 0% of the species endemic to the Iberian Peninsula ("endemic" refers to species that "only" occur in the Iberian Peninsula to begin with). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've changed the sentence to make it clearer: "Portugal and Spain together have the highest proportion of endemism in Europe among freshwater fish, with 73% of the freshwater fish species being endemic". This info comes from the source which states: "The Iberian freshwater fish fauna has the greatest European percentage of endemism (73% of the species) because of its long-term geographical isolation, which occurred during the last glaciation, the Mediterranean climate and the high number of different river basins." GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• and is an example of successful coexistence between human communities and nature. – Is this really a fact that can be presented in Wiki Voice? It reads like an advertisement without actual information value. Who decides whether something is a "successful coexistence", and what does this even mean?

  Removed that fact from the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Around 20% of the total number of extant species in continental Portugal are exotic. – This is wrong. The source only speaks of vascular plant species, not extant species in general.

  The sentence now reads: "Over one-fourth of the total number of extant plant species in continental Portugal are exotic", per the source which states (in Portuguese): "The flora of Portugal lists a total of 3,915 species (both native and exotic). Of these, 2,875 species (73%) are indicated as native to mainland Portugal. The remaining 1,040 species (27%) include all the introduced species found in mainland Portugal, as well as the native and exotic components of the flora of the islands (the Azores and Madeira)." (p. 604). GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Portugal is the 2nd country in Europe with the highest number of threatened animal and plant species.[138] – Can you give me a hint where the source is making this claim?

  It's on Table 5: number of threatened species in each major taxonomic group by country in Europe. (I've updated the rank from 2nd to 4th) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• The mammalian species of Portugal such as deer, Iberian ibex, wild boar, red fox, Iberian wolf, and Iberian lynx were once widespread throughout the country – "Deer" is not a species but a family, and deer still seem to be widespread throughout the country.

  I've added the deer species name according to the source (p. 106). It states the following in Portuguese about red deer distribution in Portugal: "Although red deer were once common throughout our country during medieval times, by the end of the 19th century they were close to extinction. This was due to pressure from agriculture and livestock farming, habitat loss or degradation, and excessive hunting. From the 1970s onward, however, their range and abundance began to increase again across the country, thanks to reintroduction programs and natural recolonization from Spain. Today, populations exist in nearly every region, with the most important ones located along the border areas with Spain (Montesinho, the International Tagus, and the Contenda-Barrancos zone) and in the Lousã Mountains — the latter resulting from a particularly successful and emblematic reintroduction program carried out in the mid-1990s". The map on the following page clearly shows that they're not that widespread across the country. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose for now – sorry but just based on the "Geography" section, I have serious concerns about overall article quality and accuracy of information. I think this needs a throughout facts check, which might still be possible during this nomination as it's still early days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  I concur with Jens' comment "I would be super careful with superlatives." It is safest to avoid words like "largest", "first", "most", "earliest". Superlatives can be wrong from the outset; and even if correct at the time of writing, they can quickly become erroneous as time goes by. Also, superlatives can often be a kind of bragging. I observed similar issues in my review above, where the "area" of Portugal was overstated; and where the country was described as the "first" of something. I got a vague sense that the article was subconsciously bragging about Portugal. Sometimes these superlatives can be remedied by simply changing "most" to "one of the most", or "earliest" to "an early", etc. As Jens says, it is early, and there is plenty of time to rectify such issues. Noleander (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  My essay on the topic of superlatives may be of some use here. RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Noleander, I'll remove all those superlatives when I reread the article after finishing RoySmith's essay. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  @GumballNine1Nine - Okay, ping me when you're done. Those superlatives (and any implied "bragging") is my only remaining concern about the article. I'm prepared to support once that is resolved. Noleander (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Noleander, done. I've removed all the problematic superlatives. I kept the ones that are based on enumerable sets which are statistics (mainly in the Economy and Demography sections) and small-set cases. Examples include: "Portugal presents several adverse public-health indicators, including the 3rd lowest share of people reporting good health in the European Union, in 2024, at 54%, the highest alcohol consumption with 11.9 litres (2.6 imp gal; 3.1 US gal) consumed per person, in 2020, and the highest share of adult population living a sedentary lifestyle, in 2022, at 73%, a pattern reinforced by limited active-transport infrastructure and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. The percentage of the Portuguese population suffering from moderate or severe food insecurity between 2022 and 2024 was on average 11.9%, which makes Portugal the third-highest country in Southern Europe for this indicator where the average stands at 5.9%"; I also kept small-set cases like "Portugal made an alliance with England, which would be later strengthened by the signing of the Treaty of Windsor, making it the oldest standing alliance in the world", since the number of standing alliances is very limited. I left in the phrase you suggested earlier as well: "Portugal was the first and the last colonial power in the era of modern European colonialism". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. I hope this has addressed your concerns so far, Jens Lallensack. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack: any other concerns or follow-ups? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  The article reads wonderfully I think we're almost at the point of moving this to FA status..... Let's get a few comments by others. Moxy🍁 13:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith (accessibility)

I'm not going to do a full review, but do want to note that MOS:COLOR says "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information" and several of the charts and maps violate that. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Could you specify which of those charts and maps still violate that? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I ask because I specifically created some files to address this issue (such as File:Koppen-Geiger Map v2 PRT 1991–2020 (labeled).svg which is a labeled version of File:Koppen-Geiger Map v2 PRT 1991–2020.svg). If you can point out where the issue still persists, I'll fix it right away. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• File:Koppen-Geiger Map v2 PRT 1991–2020 (labeled).svg
• File:Regions and Intermunicipal Communities of Portugal.svg
• File:Diplomatic foreign relations of Portugal.svg
• The {{pie chart}} in Religion

RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I gather that the color issue may be if there's the possibility of using symbols or text as an alternative, however, in the Koppen map, all pages seem to follow the same pattern; The diplomatic map, again follows what is seen in other country pages; The regions map is similar to the Japanese one, the German example of a single color map with links to the regions could be an option; On the religion pie chart, do you propose removing it and adding an image of a religious temple, like Batalha monastary, for example? Tuesp1985 (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said below, I'll replace the pie chart with an image once I've addressed the latest review. I'll drop the filename here and hopefully get a media review for it as well. I have in mind something like an image of people during Mass, since that would fit better in the religion section than a photo of a building alone. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the pie chart per the template's talk page. As for the other files, they were all discussed by Noleander earlier in this review. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@GumballNine1Nine @RoySmith - Regarding the pie chart: the {{Pie chart}} template, unfortunately, does not support WP:ACCESSIBILITY for color blind readers. I tried to raise the issue at the template talk page but the owner/creator of the template declined to enhance the template. The pie chart template is used widely in WP, so people tend to ignore its accessibility shortcomings. I needed a pie chart for the dam article, and I found a workaround for accessibility, which can be seen in the image I created here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dam_Usage_Pie_Chart.svg I documented that workaround in the pie chart template talk page. Summary: I put the numerical data into a Google Sheets spreadsheet, then created a pie chart in that app, then exported it to SVG. I'm not saying that SVG workaround is required for FA approval. It is up to the image reviewer to determine if they are willing to accept the pie charts produced by the template. I was worried that the image reviewer of dam would object, so I went through those extra steps. The owner/creator of the pie chart template believes that the template-created pie charts conform to WP accessibility requirements; I do not. Noleander (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the pie chart. I'll follow Moxy's advice regarding WP:COUNTRYCHARTS (I wasn't aware of that specific guidance when I made the changes) and replace the pie chart with an image once I've addressed Hurricanehink's comments. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

These maps and pie charts are the norm on every FA related article -be it countries, cities, military etc. To solve alt text is add. As someone how as spent decades tyring to get minor accessibility protocols of this nature part of Featured article criteria they simple not that relevant in not passing the article....see FA list. That said about pie ...WP:COUNTRYCHARTS " An educational culturally significant image is preferred over prose statistical data duplication."Moxy🍁 16:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the FAC process has not whole-heartedly embraced accessibility. Many articles are passed for FA that are somewhat deficient ... especially for (a) alt-text; (b) color-blind issues; and (c) maps.

On the other hand, many FAC reviewers encourage nominators to meet accessibility goals, and many nominators will take time and improve their images. Ive seen many nominators add alt text to images; and many add overlay text on top of maps (identifying various regions of the maps with text overlays). Just because some articles pass FA without complying with accessibility requirements is no reason for reviewers to stop suggesting it. Noleander (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

Seeing as I have an FAC of my own, I figured I should review.

Lead

• "It is a unitary republic comprising mainland Portugal, located on the southwestern of the Iberian Peninsula and bordered by Spain to the north and east, and the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean." - this is a bit on the long side. Could you split it into two? For example, "Mainland Portugal is located on the southwestern of the Iberian Peninsula, and bordered by Spain to the north and east. The Portuguese Republic also includes the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean." I just felt that the "unitary republic" part has little to do with the geographic nature of the topic. And I've read a few too many times that people think Portugal is in the southern hemisphere (because of Brazil's language) than to not go on a short rant.
• "Portugal was established as a county of the Kingdom of León in 868, and formally as a kingdom in 1179 as a result of the Reconquista against the Muslims, who had occupied the Iberian Peninsula since 711." - another long sentence. Also, it's out of order. Shouldn't the Muslim occupation be listed first, since that happened first?
• "The kingdom became a republic in 1910 and was a dictatorship from 1926 until the dictatorship's overthrow in 1974 enabled the full establishment of democracy in 1976." - that's a lot of whiplash in one sentence over 66 years. Since the lead is on the short side, I think all four of these could get a bit more explanation. Unless you are trying to keep the lead as short as possible.
• "Portugal is a semi-presidential constitutional unitary republic and multi-party representative democracy with four separate sovereignty bodies: president, government, parliament, and judiciary. " - none of these terms are linked until you get to "sovereignty bodies", but man, the first 13 words are lot to get through. I don't know much about any of these, but it seems like "semi-presidential constitutional" is the least useful here, so just eliminating that would help the sentence's readability a lot.
• "A developed country" - wikilink needed

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Shaped by the various civilisations that have inhabited its territory, Portugal developed a culture with a worldwide influence that allowed Portuguese to become the world's fifth-most spoken native language with more than 250 million native speakers." - that does a lot of heavy lifting to avoid mentioning the role of colonialism in Portuguese being the primary language of Brazil, Angola, and Mozambique, which together have 268 million people. The only other time you allude to the Portuguese empire in the lead is - "which led to the establishment of the Portuguese Empire". So I think the lead might be a bit misleading here. Maybe split it up, so you're not implying that its worldwide influence is because of other people inhabiting Portugal.

Etymology

• "The commonly accepted explanation regarding the etymology of Cale" - can you rewrite? "commonly accept explanation" sounds like weasel words.

  The text now reads: "There is no consensus on the etymology of Cale. It could be an ethnonym derived from the Celtic Gallaeci peoples, who occupied the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

History

• "The Mediterranean coast was well known to the Carthaginians, whose close relations with Phoenician-Punic settlements likely gave them considerable political and economic influence there from the 6th or 5th century BC." - it took me a few reads to realize you weren't talking about Portugal here. Perhaps say "Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula"?
• "In 711, the Iberian Peninsula was invaded from the south by the Umayyad Caliphate, which expanded rapidly and by 716 most of the peninsula was part of al-Andalus." - suggest splitting into two sentences
• "These were conquered by the Almoravids, who were in turn conquered by the Almohads." - is it worth adding the year?
• "A dispute erupted after the death of Count Henry in 1112, culminating in the Battle of São Mamede in 1128 whereby Afonso Henriques defeated the forces of his mother Countess Teresa and her lover Fernando Pérez de Traba, establishing himself as sole leader of the county." - again, too long
• "After the depletion of gold revenues, Portugal was left with a weak industrial base and backward institutional and educational structures, a condition exacerbated by Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal, who emerged as the country's de facto ruler in the aftermath of the 1755 earthquake and tsunami, a natural disaster that shook the kingdom and recognized as one of the worst to ever occur." - Several problems. First off, too long for one sentence. Second, "backward" feels biased. Also, is "shook the kingdom" trying to be a pun? I suggest something like "one of the kingdom's worst recorded natural disaster."
• "Pombal's failed industrialisation efforts, education policies that weakened human-capital formation, and expulsion of the Jesuits, reducing student numbers and contributing to Portugal's decline in literacy. " - the grammar seems off here
• "Pombal's instrumentalisation of the Inquisition for political purposes" - "instrumentalisation" seems like a long word when "use" would work
• "Although Miguel's return was under the condition of swearing allegiance to the Charter, he soon dismantled liberal institutions and was proclaimed king in 1828, leading to the Liberal Wars, after which Pedro forced Miguel's abdication in favour of Maria and his exile causing absolutist ideology to wane." - could this be simpler?
• "At the same time it expanded its colonies in Africa, but this culminated in the 1890 British Ultimatum, which thwarted Portugal's imperialist ambitions and represented a devastating blow to the monarchy." - I don't really know what happened, and "devastating blow" isn't useful.
• "In 1908, King Carlos I and his son and heir, Luís Filipe, Prince Royal, were assassinated by republican sympathizers.[95] In 1910, the monarchy was replaced with a republic." - this is vague. Who were the rulers if the king and the heir were killed? Also, it's vague about what becoming a republic meant.
• "During the Estado Novo, Portugal remained neutral in World War II, after which the postwar decline of colonial legitimacy and the growth of African independence movements increasingly challenged Portuguese rule overseas." - should be split
• "The regime introduced reforms intended to strengthen ties between the metropole and the colonies" - since "metropole" is just an Ancient Greek term that requires clicking the link to know what it means (with no further usage in the article), what about "mainland Portugal" here?
• "Indigenous peoples already second-class citizens, saw limited improvements in living conditions further fuelled nationalist movements, ultimately leading to the Portuguese Colonial War from 1961 to 1974." - poor grammar here in terms of subject/verb structure, so could you rewrite this? Maybe split it? I wasn't sure at first what you meant by "indigenous peoples", whether it meant in Portugal itself or the colonies. Maybe, "In 1961, the Portuguese Colonial War began after poor living conditions fuelled nationalist movements." I don't know if this is 100% accurate but it was my attempt at making the sentence simpler.
• "After the transition to democracy, in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, under the influence of a group of economists who had studied in the United States, Portugal set about dismantling socialist policies from that period and moving towards neoliberalism." - another long and complicated sentence. Maybe something like, "After the transition to democracy, Portugal dismantled socialist policies and moved toward neoliberalism, influenced by economists who studied in the United States."
• "In 1986, Portugal joined the European Economic Community (EEC), which led to a considerable growth of its economy." - I feel like you should add when this became the EU, since the article mentions several times that Portugal is in the EU.
• "The 2010–2014 Portuguese financial crisis resulted in an international bailout and intense austerity policies, causing lasting social impacts." - such as? It's 2026 now, have they continued in the last 12 years, or has it changed again?

Geography

• "The highest peak in mainland Portugal is Torre in Serra da Estrela, at an elevation of 1,993 metres (6,539 ft).[117] - thank youuuuu, I was wondering this as I was reading the sentence in real time. And double thank you for having this as a note. No complaints here.
• "Portugal can be divided into four morphostructural units" - sorry but what's morphostructural? Since there's an article for Geography of Portugal and Geology of the Iberian Peninsula, this could be a part of the article that's cut down a bit. Unless you think it's vital, but most of the following just seems like intense reading that gave me anxiety:

• "Its geological and geomorphological features are largely the product of the Variscan, responsible for the formation of the Hesperian Massif, and later the Tethys–Atlantic cycle, responsible for the remaining units.[119] Regional tectonic processes affected mainland Portugal's morphostructural units differently, producing relief variations that subdivide the territory into ten regional geomorphological units shaped by the different regional impacts of the Cenozoic tectonics, regional asymmetries of climate in the Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary, and the varied response of different lithologies to tectonic activity and climatic variability."

• "Its geography is structured by the Tagus River, which enters from Spain and flows into the Tagus Estuary, as 95% of areas exceeding 400 m (1,300 ft) are situated to the north of the river while the regions south of the Tagus, encompassing Alentejo and the Algarve, have 62% of the lands below 200 m (660 ft)." - it mentions "Tagus" three times, and is pretty lengthy, so could you reword this a bit?
• "one third" - should have a dash I believe

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The climate of Portugal is mainly Mediterranean. Mainland Portugal and Madeira, together with their surrounding waters, have a Mediterranean climate" - I feel like the first sentence is redundant since you immediately go on to explain it

  Removed first sentence. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Over one-fourth of the total number of extant plant species in continental Portugal are exotic" - a few words could be cut

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Government and politics

• "The president exercises representative functions, carries supervisory and reserve powers, being capable of using its position to shape political opinions and agendas, and promote consensus and dialogue" - the grammar is off. Your verbs go "exercises", "carries", then "being", then "promote". Couldn't the third simply part be "shapes political opinions and agendas"?

  The sentence now reads: "The president exercises representative functions, carries supervisory and reserve powers, and shapes political opinions and agendas". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "There have been recent trends towards autocratisation." - you link to Democratic backsliding, but there's no mention of Portugal there or in Democratic backsliding in Europe by country - could you elaborate?

  This comes primarily from the 2026 V-Dem report, which places Portugal on the Watchlist as a potential autocratizer. I'm not sure why this isn't mentioned in those articles, it seems like it simply wasn't noticed. I don't think it's due to credibility concerns, since V-Dem is a well-respected source. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The Portuguese military budget in 2025 was estimated at more than $6 billion, representing 2% of GDP." - shouldn't this be in Euros?

  The NATO press release from which that figure comes explicitly states that NATO uses United States dollars (USD) as the common currency denominator. Since GDP is also measured in USD, it makes sense to display the military budget in the same currency to accurately reflect that it represents 2% of GDP. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "31.3 months" - make sure all numbers in the article are separated by a non-breaking space. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Non-breaking_spaces.

Economy

• "The PSI, Portugal's stock market index operated by the Euronext Lisbon, includes 16 major Portugal-based companies. Preeminent Portuguese companies include Sonae, Mota-Engil, Corticeira Amorim, The Navigator Company and EDP." - I feel like these sentences could be merged by getting rid of "Preeminent Portuguese companies". Something like "Operated by the Euronext Lisbon, Portugal's stock market, the PSI, includes 16 major companies based on the country, including Sonae, Mota-Engil, Corticeira Amorim, The Navigator Company and EDP." - assuming that's still accurate.

  Done. And yes, all of those companies are still listed on the PSI. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• "While Portugal captured 185,000 metric tons of fish in 2019, down from the 222,000 metric tons in 2010, fish and seafood represent the single highest import of biocapacity from abroad, amounting to 1,600,000 global hectares in total." - missing imperial units. But that also might make the sentence clunky.

  Provided non-metric measurements per MOS:CONVERSIONS. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Portugal's industry accounted for 21.2% of the country's total GDP as of 2024" - I had to double check to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Maybe specify "manufacturing industry"?

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Portugal's road network includes a motorway system of 48 motorways" - can you avoid the redundancy of having "motorway" twice in five words?

  The sentence now reads: "Portugal's road network includes a system of 48 motorways,...". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The country has 37 civil airports,[263] of which fourteen are international airports." - all numbers over ten should be written as numbers, generally. So "14".

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Portugal has expanded the role of renewable sources in its energy sector, with renewables accounting for 35.2% of energy consumption, up from 21.9% in 2007, and 78.1% of total installed capacity, compared with 59.3% in 2014." - I was wondering when this was as of. Because this article from 2024 has it up to 71% of energy consumption from renewables. Unless I'm mistaken.

Demographics

• "Portuguese people are typically bilingual, with 67.5% speaking two languages, and tend to be proficient non-native English speakers, with Portugal placed sixth globally for English proficiency in the 2025 EF English Proficiency Index." - interesting, but the wording is complex
• "Portugal presents several adverse public-health indicators, including the 3rd lowest share of people reporting good health in the European Union, in 2024, at 54%, the highest alcohol consumption with 11.9 litres (2.6 imp gal; 3.1 US gal) consumed per person, in 2020, and the highest share of adult population living a sedentary lifestyle, in 2022, at 73%, a pattern reinforced by limited active-transport infrastructure and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists." - needs to be split up

Culture

• "Portugal has developed a specific culture due to, initially before its existence, the influence from various civilisations that have crossed Europe, especially the Mediterranean, and later, during the period of Portugal's engagement in the Age of Discovery which introduced cultural elements from outside of Europe and became a central element of Portuguese national identity." - too long of a sentence

  I've split it into two sentences. It now reads: "Portugal has developed a specific culture due to, initially before its existence, the influence from various civilisations that have crossed Europe, especially the Mediterranean. Later, during the period of Portugal's engagement in the Age of Discovery, cultural elements from outside of Europe were introduced and became a central element of Portuguese national identity.". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The earliest record of a singer in Portugal is from the year 525." - record in music is very different than what you're implying here. Maybe "documentation"?

  The sentence now reads: "The earliest documentation of a singer in Portugal is from the year 525". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Today, these festivities are celebrated across the country, especially in rural areas, and typically include music performances, stages, temporary arenas, and traditional food stalls." - avoid "Today" so we don't wonder if it's only a limited time thing.

  Done. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

In all, the article is decent, informative, and interesting. I think it needs some work, but I don't think any of my comments should be too difficult to address. @GumballNine1Nine: lemme know if you have any questions about my review. Cheers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments, Hurricanehink. Yes, I plan to review your nomination. Once I've addressed your comments, I'll review Noleander's nomination and then take a look at your article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

JacobTheRox

Lede

• "The country has a population of over 11.4 million" – its population is 11.4 million to 1dp: the word 'over' suggests it is genuinely higher but that is an ascertained minimum.
• Wikilink Lisbon in first instance of use
• "The kingdom became a republic in 1910 and was a dictatorship from 1926 until the dictatorship's overthrow in 1974 enabled the establishment of democracy in 1976" – this sounds a bit clunky; how about "The kingdom became a republic in 1910, before becoming a dictatorship in 1926, whose 1974 overthrowal enabled democracy to be established in 1976".
• Consider adding "(Assembleia da República)" next to Assembly of the Republic
• "Portugal is divided into two autonomous regions and seven regions on the mainland while it remains highly centralised." – again, this sentence is poorly written. How about "Portugal is divided into seven mainland regions and two autonomous overseas regions, though it remains a highly centralised country."

Etymology

• Add the Latin IPA to Portus Cale as an efn, which you can find on its wiktionary page
• "There is no consensus on the etymology of Cale" – if you are referring to the word, it should be italicised; if you are referring to the place, it should be "there is no consensus on the etymology of Cale's name".
• "It could be an ethnonym derived from the Celtic Gallaeci peoples, who occupied the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula." – when?!? In fact, this entire paragraph is lacking any dates which would be helpful.
• You could actually merge all the information into one chronological paragraph which would read a lot better than one on the etymology and one on the history of the name (as they are both kind of the same thing).

Prehistory

• "The region has been inhabited by humans..." – which region? You haven't introduced it. Are you talking about the whole of Iberia, or just where Portugal is today?
• Furthermore, is the date of "approximately 400,000 years ago" actually in sources, or is it just an extrapolation of the fact that the earliest human trace found in Portugal is approximately that old? If the latter, it should be at least, not approximately.
• "representing an early evidence" – ungrammatical; it should be "representing early evidence" or "a piece of early evidence" (preferably the former to avoid repition of 'of').
• " Celts inhabited most of the remaining territory of mainland Portugal, leaving lasting traces in the language and culture such as contributing to the formation of Portuguese values and identity, such as saudade – avoidable repetition of "such as". The first instance can simply be removed

Antiquity and early Middle Ages

• "Romans first invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 218BC" – this implies the invasion was by individual Roman people rather than by the Romans; if it was a campaign by the empire it should be The Romans first invaded" or "The Roman Empire first invaded..."
• "...facing resistance from local tribes, such as the Lusitanians led by Viriathus. – ungrammatical; should be "...from local tribes, such as the Lusitanians, who/which were led by Viriathus".
• It would be better to merge the paragraphs starting "Romans first invaded..." and "In 409, with...", as FAs should have longer and more even paragraph lengths.

I am going to have to stop there for now, but I will do more later. The prose in the article is certainly not yet FA-quality, but there is no reason this should constitute its failure. Feel free to get back to me on these or wait until I have done more. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 11:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: I am not going to continue my review until: (a) you have responded to the above; and (b) the source-text integrity issues have been sorted out – this is just because I don't want to waste my time if the FAC goes nowhere. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox: I absolutely intend to address every concern that you and Hurricanehink have raised. Once source concerns were raised by another reviewer, I felt the most reasonable thing to do was to address those first before resuming the prose fixes, for the same reason you just mentioned. Thank you for the time and effort you have already put into the review, I truly appreciate it. I intend to address each point once I have finished reviewing the article's sources. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Joko2468: source-text integrity

Coming over from the FAC talk page where a sourcing review was requested. In the replies, Jens Lallensack stated their belief that the article has systemic source-text integrity issues so I'll be mainly focusing on the citations spot check. I'm not familiar enough with Portuguese topics to judge whether any authoritative sources are underutilised. Joko2468 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• MOS:TITLECAPS is a little vague on this but I think book titles are expected to be capitalised? This would also apply to chapter titles.

Citations spot check

I've computed this for 50 passages such that it's representative of 15% of the total citations but I may cut this short if serious issues arise similar to those in Jens's review above. This table lists 50 random passages from throughout the article (15.0% of 333 total passages). These passages contain 69 inline citations (14.8% of 465 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Joko2468 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @GumballNine1Nine for your work on this article but I don't think the sourcing is up to FA standard. The pervasive citing of entire journal articles lends itself to excessive summarisation, perhaps to the point of WP:OR. This subject is well-served; it shouldn't be too difficult to find brief and explicit statements that support the material. Together with the two established verification failures and those highlighted above, I'm going to have to oppose promotion to FA. I would recommend that you go over all the citations and ensure that everything explicitly supports the material. In your shoes, and once happy with the sourcing, I would ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal for someone to do a citations spot check, which I think would put you in a strong position to renominate. Pinging @FAC coordinators: (and @Gog the Mild who requested the review) since I believe this constitutes too much work for an FA candidacy. Joko2468 (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I neglected to say-- if you're going to ask at Wikiproject Portugal for a citations spot check, I would strongly recommend that you tighten the page numbers. It otherwise places too much of a burden on the reviewer and you might be hard-pressed to find one willing. Joko2468 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joko2468: Thank you for the comments. Regarding the source spot check, as I mentioned above, I'm currently doing a source review as part of an ongoing previous review. If there are any issues, it's simply because it isn't finished yet. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm moving too slowly, I've been tight on time until this coming Monday. Something unexpected came up after I had already started the source review, which I didn't anticipate beforehand, I'll be able to work on this, after Monday, and hopefully have the article ready for a spot check. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that but there are over 400 citations for you to go through-- I really don't think this is appropriate for an FAC, which should be focused on the relevant criteria. To my understanding, source-text integrity is supposed to be tackled at GA. Tagging @Jens Lallensack to see if they're still happy to do a spot check once you've gone over the article. Joko2468 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joko2468: I'll leave a message here once I'm done. (I don't anticipate this taking any longer than a week.) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the article, and I've already checked more sources scattered throughout it than the edit history might suggest. The history section is taking the most time because much of that content was already present when I began working on it, unlike most of the rest of the article, which I largely wrote myself. Therefore, I'm confident I can finish the review within the timeframe I mentioned—perhaps even sooner. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I should say that, similar to another FAC I recently opposed on similar grounds, the GA review was done by the same reviewer misremembered, the other one by this reviewer ended up being promoted and the article does not appear to have been subjected to a spot check. As such, I think you could also ask for one at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Joko2468 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• 14: this instead describes the etymology of Galicia. Ref 15a requires a reviewer to read the entire 50-page article. The year 136 BC does not appear to be mentioned in either source.
• 37b: again this requires the reviewer to read the entire ten-page article. It's not good to have a grumpy reviewer. I would use "collapsed" in place of abolished since this is the word the source uses.
• 68: this is again the whole 20-page article. The article is about Portugal's rise as a maritime power, is there not a more explicit source that supports this? Ref 62b appears to support this but it's hard to tell given it's cited to another full article. Ref 67 appears to be WP:OR. I'm going to skip to checking the other instances where full articles are cited to see if the material is explicitly supported.
• 87: the sfn template is missing the date (when in Show preview you can scroll down to the table at the bottom of the page and open Lua logs-- at the bottom of this are two more sfn refs that don't have targets).
• 105a: this article is about Portuguese historical memory and I can't find the material in the source. Searches for "monarch", "ultimatum", and "1890" return nothing.

More information Reference #, Letter ...

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Around 136 BC, the Romans, during the Second Punic War, conquered Cale from the Carthaginians and renamed it Portus Cale.
14		Magarinhos (2011), p. 543.
15	a	Silva (2010), pp. 213–262.		⏳
The Carthaginians were expelled from the peninsula in 206 BC after the Battle of Ilipa.
28		Zimmermann (2011), p. 293.
The Umayyads ruled al-Andalus until it fragmented into small states, with the caliphate being abolished in 1031,
37	b	Rusin (2025), pp. 7–17.
Northern incursions also occurred during this period, with Viking raids recorded from 844 into the 11th century.
41		Pires (2022), pp. 92–95.
The following year, Afonso claimed sole authority over the entire county, free from foreign influence.
51		Lay (2009), pp. 71–72.
with the House of Aviz becoming the ruling house that led Portugal to prominence in European politics and culture.
66		Barros Cardoso & da Silva Lima (2024), pp. 388–410.		⏳
62	b	Ferrarini & Mocelim (2024), pp. 518–540.		⏳
67		Santiago de Carvalho (2013), pp. 187–206.		⏳
and by the mid-16th century it controlled a network of possessions stretching from Lisbon to Japan and Timor through Brazil.
75		Veracini (2023), pp. 12, 28.		⏳
In 1581 he was acclaimed [pt] king of Portugal, creating a personal union between the two kingdoms.
87		Barrio Gozalo, pp. 303–305. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFBarrio_Gozalo (help)		⏳
88		Stella (1999), pp. 411–438. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFStella1999 (help)		⏳
During the reign of John V, the large influx of Brazilian gold into the royal treasury, chiefly through the royal fifth, produced a resource curse that weakened industry and cereal production, created a gold rush from Portugal to Brazil, and led to prolonged economic stagnation, permanent reduction of income growth, and the interruption of the institutional and economic progress achieved in the 17th century.
95	a	Kedrosky & Palma (2025), pp. 730–766.
At the same time it expanded its colonies in Africa, but this culminated in the 1890 British Ultimatum, which thwarted Portugal's imperialist ambitions and represented a devastating blow to the monarchy.
105	a	Peralta (2026), pp. 341–364.
However, the war increased political instability and deepened the economic crisis creating further chaos and unrest during the First Republic.
108		Comité de Datação dos Ciclos Económicos Portugueses (2023).		⏳
109		Sardica (2011), pp. 63–89.		⏳
Portugal's territory comprises mainland Portugal and the Azores and Madeira archipelagos.
3	b	Ramos & Ramos-Pereira (2020), p. 4.		⏳
The country is over two-thirds wilderness, almost one-fourth agricultural, and the remainder human settlements.
126	a	Portugal: forest profile (2021), p. 1.		⏳
Regional tectonic processes affected mainland Portugal's morphostructural units differently, producing relief variations that subdivide the territory into ten regional geomorphological units shaped by the different regional impacts of the Cenozoic tectonics, regional asymmetries of climate in the Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary, and the varied response of different lithologies to tectonic activity and climatic variability.
131		Ramos & Ramos-Pereira (2020), pp. 13–29.		⏳
The average temperature in Portugal varies from 4–20 °C (39.2–68.0 °F) in the mainland, around 18 °C (64.4 °F) in the Azores, and 9–19 °C (48.2–66.2 °F) in Madeira.
140		Mora & Vieira (2020), p. 36.		⏳
141		Rusu (2023), pp. 5–15.		⏳
142		Pinheiro de Carvalho et al. (2022).		⏳
with impacts in water,
147		Claro et al. (2024).		⏳
It is home to six terrestrial ecoregions - Azores temperate mixed forests, Cantabrian mixed forests, Madeira evergreen forests, Iberian sclerophyllous and semi-deciduous forests, Northwest Iberian montane forests, and Southwest Iberian Mediterranean sclerophyllous and mixed forests.
155		Dinerstein et al. (2017), pp. 534–545.		⏳
The Constitution makes for a separation of powers among four sovereignty bodies: the president, the government, the Assembly of the Republic, and the courts.
171		Feijó (2019), pp. 43–44.		⏳
It consists of a single chamber with a minimum of 180 seats and a maximum of 230, elected by popular vote every four years or when dissolved.
181		Narciso (2023), p. 209.		⏳
180	b	books.google.pt		⏳
182		Neto (2023), p. 128.		⏳
The Constitution is the supreme law of Portugal.
194		Violante (2023), pp. 133–136.		⏳
A member state of the United Nations since 1955,
201		Castaño (2015), pp. 9–38.		⏳
EFTA in 1960,
205		Andresen-Leitão (2004), pp. 285–312.		⏳
As of 2025, the three branches numbered 23,589 military personnel.
218		Departamento de Informação da Organização do Estado e do Emprego Público (2025b), p. 7.		⏳
The main police organisations of Portugal are the Guarda Nacional Republicana (National Republican Guard), the Polícia de Segurança Pública (Public Security Police), a civilian police force that works in urban areas; and the Polícia Judiciária (Judiciary Police), a senior criminal police body, under the authority of the Minister of Justice and endowed with administrative autonomy.
213	b	Lloyd-Jones & Cerezales (2007), p. 90.		⏳
223		Rocha Gonçalves & Durão (2017), p. 4.		⏳
224		Cardoso (2020), pp. 189–193.		⏳
and forbids extradition in the case of either sentence possibly being imposed.
228		Costa & Caeiro (2021), pp. 281–283, 299–304.		⏳
racism and discrimination against minorities,
232	a	Survey on living conditions, origins and trajectories of the resident population 2023 (2023).		⏳
The country's economic policy is framed by strategic guidelines called Major Options [pt], which are subsequently implemented through the State Budget.
240		Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2023), p. 64.		⏳
The national debt of Portugal was estimated at 89.7% relative to GDP as of 2025.
247		Excessive deficit procedure: 1st notification 2026 (2026).		⏳
Operated by the Euronext Lisbon, Portugal's stock market, the PSI, includes 16 major companies based on the country, including Sonae, Mota-Engil, Corticeira Amorim, The Navigator Company, and EDP.
256	a	live.euronext.com	web.archive.org	⏳
Portugal ranks sixth in the world in seafood consumption per capita, with each Portuguese person consuming on average 54 kg (119 lb) of fish in 2023.
265		Fishery and aquaculture statistics – yearbook 2023 (2025), p. 92.		⏳
As of 2025, Portugal's automobile industry produced the biggest share of the country's exports.
254	b	International trade – March 2026 (2026).		⏳
The Alqueva Dam is one of the largest strategic water reserves in Europe.
272		Santos & Pais Dias (2021), p. 4.		⏳
The country is pursuing energy transition and has invested in the development of renewable energy sources such as the Aguçadoura Wave Farm.
281		Costa & Veiga (2021).		⏳
282		Silva, Rusu & Guedes Soares (2018).		⏳
Portugal has a fertility rate of 1.4, which is below the replacement rate of 2.1 and is one of the world's lowest.
6	c	Estimates of resident population in Portugal 2025 (2026).		⏳
Portugal has been a net recipient of immigrants since 1993 except between 2011 and 2016 during the Portuguese financial crisis.
293		30 years of 25 April: a statistical portrait (2004), p. 8.		⏳
294		Pires & Vidigal (2020), pp. 5, 6.		⏳
6	f	Estimates of resident population in Portugal 2025 (2026).		⏳
Even though Portugal has deep ties with Christianity, as of 2019 the majority of its people were shown to be tolerant towards followers of other faiths, with the Muslim community perceiving itself as thoroughly integrated into Portugal and believing that the country provided conditions conducive to smooth integration.
304		de Carvalho et al. (2025), pp. 2–16.		⏳
after which school attendance is compulsory for 12 years.
316	a	Cabrito (2023).		⏳
A general requirement for higher education are the exames finais nacionais do ensino secundário.
318		Coordinators and authors of the National Secondary Education Examinations (2024), p. 11.		⏳
The Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra in Coimbra is the largest medical complex in Portugal.
331		benchmarking-acss.min-saude.pt		⏳
In 2023, Portugal's health care was 38% privately funded and 62% government-funded, the 3rd lowest public share on health spending in the European Union.
334		Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development & European Observatory on Health Systems and…		⏳
poetry,
345		Ladeira (2008), pp. 43–72.		⏳
As of 2026, UNESCO inscribed 17 properties in Portugal on the World Heritage List.
348		unesco.org	web.archive.org	⏳
Portugal has a literary tradition that predates the Portuguese language going back into the early 13th century.
357		Cohen & Parkinson (2009), pp. 37–43.		⏳
Portugal has one Nobel Prize–winning author—José Saramago (1998).
367		nobelprize.org	web.archive.org	⏳
Public holidays in Portugal are regulated by the Labour Code [pt].
376	b	Torgal (2026), pp. 1–13.		⏳
Bacalhau has such a broad presence in Portugal that it is considered a national dish, along with the pastel de nata.
383		Silva (2015), pp. 132–133.		⏳
384		Costa e Silva & Elo (2017), pp. 425–442.		⏳
Tea has been produced on São Miguel Island since the 19th century.
388		Moura (2019), pp. 112–130.		⏳
In athletics [pt], the country has set several records and has earned more medals in this sport than in any other at both the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
400		2024 activities and accounts report (2025), pp. 54–95.		⏳
401		comiteolimpicoportugal.pt		⏳
402		Paralympic medals (2026), pp. 2–9.		⏳
Portugal's colonial empire endured from the conquest of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999. Historian L. Veracini states that Portugal was the first and the last explicitly colonial power.
72		L'Estoile (2023), p. xii.		⏳
73		Veracini (2023), p. 12.		⏳
74		Schriffl (2022), p. 487.		⏳
Namely in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Mali, Central African Republic, Somalia, Mozambique and East Timor.
216		exercito.pt		⏳

Close

Coord note -- over five weeks in and getting this over the line still requires a fair bit of work that should be undertaken away from the pressures of FAC; I know this has already been to PR so perhaps the best thing is to copy outstanding points to the article talk page and engage with reviewers there before looking at another nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2026 (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) 08:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

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