Wikipedia:Peer review/Portugal/archive3

Comments from Z1720

GumballNine1Nine reached out on my talk page, so I'll take a look. It may take me several days to read through and copy-edit the article. Feel free to revert changes if they are not helpful.

• Regarding WP:SIZERULE: at 7,859 words (when I started, its lower since I started editing the article,) I think there's space to add some information. I know SIZERULE recommends 8,000 words max, but I don't get concerned until 9,000, and an article of this size is probably going to be a little bigger. As I review the article, I'll see if there are places that can be trimmed to help give more space.
• I added a "duplicate references" yellow banner to highlight refs that might be able to be merged.
• "Portugal maintains an active role in international political, cultural, economic, and military affairs." This is what I like to call a "say nothing" statement that is popular with AI: It sounds impressive and is technically true, but it is so general that it doesn't give additional information to the reader. What role does Portugal specifically play in international affairs? Is it the peacekeeper, the warmonger, the isolationist, the middle power, the diplomatic negotiator, the colonial power that can't bud out of its former colony's affairs, or something else? Maybe also a statement in its role in the EU would be helpful.
• "leaving lasting traces in the language and culture." I would give an example here.
• Prehistory mentions the Celts occupying Portugal, and the "Antiquity and early Middle Ages" section starts with the Romans conquering and expelling the Carthaginians. I think the Carthaginians' arrival to the area needs to be mentioned in this article somewhere.
• "Finding many towns in the region deserted, Peres decided to rebuild and repopulate them." I don't think this is necessary in the article and I think it can be removed.

Pausing at "Independence". Feel free to comment/address concerns above while the review is ongoing. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Z1720 and thank you for all the contributions you have made to the article so far. I'll address the mistakes you raised once I have finished working on the Education section. My only comment is that I do not agree with what you said about WP:SIZERULE because it might cause a problem with some reviewers when Portugal becomes a FAC since they tend to be quite rigorous in there (and that's a good thing), you also have articles that cover huge topics such as Philosophy that managed to stay at under 7,000 words, also, adding more info above that threshold is a slippery slope (look at what happened with Madagascar: the size of the article (although in that case it was an article with 13,000 words not 9,000) was in the list of reasons for its downgrade from FA). GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Done GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Rolluik

I focus on the religion section and have also skimmed the history section paying attention to adjacent topics.

Text says 14.7% nonreligious, the piechart says 14.1%. You could leave of Church from Eastern Orthodox Church. Consider if you would want to write more about Jewish history. It is not strictly necessary (the link could suffice) but on the other hand there is a long history there and Christianity (especially the Catholic Church) and Islam are already well covered. Rolluik (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Consider adding Our lady of Fatima. Rolluik (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait until the FAC process to see what reviewers have to say on this before adding it to the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Done - Given that Jews constitute less than 1% of Portugal's population, I don't think that Jewish history is necessary under WP:PROPORTION. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Whonting

Well done taking on such a challenge as getting this to FA.

• "Homo sapiens sapiens arrived in what is now Portugal around 35,000 years ago and spread rapidly, with the onset of the Neolithic dating to approximately 5400 BC." Why do you use "with" here? What does the onset of the Neolithic have to do with the speed at which Homo sapiens sapiens spread?
• "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." This is not elaborated on elsewhere, and is quite vague. Can you give at least one example?
• Introduce that the Carthaginians were in the peninsula before you start talking about them being expelled?
• It would probably be helpful to a reader to introduce where on the Iberian peninsula modern day Portugal is if you want to say, for instance, "Neanderthals roamed the northern Iberian peninsula"
• Most of the history section is very occupied with questions of who in particular was ruling. It gives little or no time to cultural / economic / social structure / language / trade etc (some time is later given in the music section etc, but it is broken down and removed from a broader context, which I have a preference against). For instance, the first we here about there being Christian polities is when they are doing battle. Or, writing more generally, "In 868, Porto was conquered from the Moors by Vímara Peres" This is the first we hear about Porto, and the first we hear about the (unlinked) Moors, let alone that the Moors were apparently occupying Porto.
• Skipping down to the Geography section, I feel overwhelmed with statistics impacting the reading experience. I was interested to see how Britannica would treat this and felt refreshed ; it's almost all prose, statistics are used rarely and when they are, they are approximate. Compare the opening of Britannica's section here:

Portugal occupies one-sixth of the Iberian Peninsula at Europe’s southwestern perimeter. To its north and east is Spain, which makes up the rest of the peninsula; to the south and the west is the Atlantic Ocean; and to the west and southwest lie the Azores (Açores) and the Madeira Islands, which are part of metropolitan Portugal. Portugal is not a large country, but it offers a great diversity of physical geography, ranging from low-lying coasts and plains to the Estrela Mountains, which rise to nearly 6,500 feet (2,000 metres).

with this:

Portugal comprises a mainland territory located on the Iberian Peninsula in Southwestern Europe, commonly referred to as Continental Portugal, as well as the two archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores on the Atlantic Ocean. The country is situated between latitudes 30° and 42° N, and longitudes 32° and 6° W.[132] Portugal encompasses a total area of 156,597 km2 (60,462 sq mi), of which 64,372 km2 (24,854 sq mi) consists of territorial sea and internal waters, while the country's land area amounts to 92,225 km2 (35,608 sq mi).

I see the same stats recounting elsewhere, e.g. in infrastructure: "Portugal has a 14,342 km (8,912 mi) road network, of which 3,113 km (1,934 mi) are part of a system of 48 motorways, making it the eighth largest motorway system among 42 European countries as of 2024.[284][285] The country has 37 civil airports,[286] of which five are international airports."

Jumping down further:

• "Portugal faces issues such as police brutality" describing it as "brutality" is already a POV statement, but the question of whether something is an issue is necessarily a subjective one, and inappropriate for the amoral wikivoice. This section is in general fairly sketchy; we identify one of the largest issues as "widespread racism and discrimination against minorities" from a press release from the statistical agency. That sentence itself appears to be drawing from "More than 1.2 million people (16.1%) have experienced discrimination in Portugal," which doesn't directly support "widespread racism and discrimination" (SYNTH/OR analysis of those statistics), and really doesn't really support minority as commonly understood when "those highly educated" are among those being discriminated against.

Hopefully you find this feedback fair, I will help out anyway I can here. Whonting (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Done - regarding what you said about the history section: Portugal has a long and extensively documented history, as is also reflected in the lengthy chronology in the infobox. The history section necessarily focuses on the main political developments and ruling powers in order to remain proportionate to the rest of the article and avoid further imbalance in its overall coverage, in accordance with WP:BETTER. The lack of cultural, economic and social history within that section is deliberate. Rather than compressing these subjects into an already large section, by addressing them in the article sections to which they are directly relevant it allows those subjects to be treated with greater detail and clearer context than would be possible if they were added into a single, large history section. I hope that the edits to the human rights section have addressed the concerns you raised. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for getting on these. Not having a proper look at the moment so two brief comments. On history: I'm not seeing economic or social history (e.g. family structures, values outside of discrete artistic ) in their own sections, can you point them out?

Glancing at Holidays there again seems to be failing to produce a readable narrative by a focus on details. This section should not be a big list of holidays, and the list of days aren't particularly helpful. Is it remarkable that Portugal celebrates the Assumption of Mary on August 15? What is conveyed by mentioning that International Workers Day is observed on May 1? This section is being built from primary sources and so doesn't manage to convey any WP:WEIGHT or anything about how these holidays are celebrated. Google tells me bacalhau is consumed with family in a quiet meal on Christmas Eve. That's interesting and gives me insight into Portugal in a way a simple list cannot. Whonting (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also add a reference to the June Santos Populares holidays, which are the main festivities of the major cities, Lisbon, Porto, Gaia, Braga, and so on. Maybe add an image of those holidays rather than the Entrudo image. Cheers. Tuesp1985 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. @Tuesp1985, is this Marchas Populares? Whonting (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It's the St. Anthony "Marchas Populares" on the night of 12 to 13 June. Famalicão, in the north region, also celebrates St. Anthony. Porto, Gaia, Braga and Figueira da Foz celebrate St. John on 23 to 24 June; while St. Peter is also celebrated in the fishing communities of Gaia and Porto, Sintra, Póvoa de Varzim, and also in some parts of the Alentejo region on 28 and 29 June. Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added an overview of economic and social history to the "Iberian Union and Restoration" and Education sections. I'll address the Holidays section soon GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there should also be a bit more content on the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, which was one of the, if not "the", defining moments in early modern Portuguese history. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Done GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Footnote 86: could the relevant scholarship be cited directly?

• Suggest relying more on secondary sourcing for Government, rather than primary government documents. Generally it would be helpful to use independent secondary sources where high-quality ones are available

• FN360: is there a non-tourist source that could be cited for this?

• How are you deciding which items are in Sources and which not?

• How does the use of theses meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• You've included several sources that are quite old - is there a reason to choose these over more recent scholarship?

• What makes Humbaraci a high-quality reliable source? Redweik? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Done — I've replaced outdated sources with more up-to-date ones, except in cases where the older sources delved deeper into the subject, such as fn48. There is now one doctoral thesis and it has been cited in the literature. I've also removed Humbaraci. Regarding Redweik, although it focuses on sensors, it also gives an overview of the architecture of the Tower of Belém, which is the subject of the article. As for which items will be listed in the Sources section, I'll include anything that isn't a landing page, mainly pdfs. Before nominating the article, I'll add a comment at the top of that section clarifying this. I hope this addresses your points. (I'll see if there's more primary government documents that can be substituted with secondary sources) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Reilly is listed in Sources but is not cited

Comments from DuncanHill

The following references are undefined. Readers cannot verify them, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. "Mueller & Leite (2020)", "Da Costa Dominguez (2024)", "Mitchell (2024)". This is a common problem with short-form references. DuncanHill (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently working on that. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Done GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)