Talk:Special Operations Command (Brazil)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brazil This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BriRHP31. Peer reviewers: Wldub, Sokeefe19.

Above undated message substituted from

On the "Equipment" section, two entries are listed only as, and link to, the manufacturers themselves. If anyone out there knows and reads this, it needs to be clarified which Barrett sniper rifle(s) and Benelli shotgun(s) are in use. I'd do so myself if I knew, but I'm not too familiar with Brazilian SOF. Spartan198 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a student looking to improve the quality of this page. If you have any ideas for sources, please let me know. thanks BriRHP31 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

planned sources:

• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
• http://www.defesa.gov.br/
• http://www.copesp.eb.mil.br/index.php/editoria-b/base-adm
• https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo11149/PUB1049.pdf

http://www.copesp.eb.mil.br/index.php/institucional-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriRHP31 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Preliminary outline for improvement of this article)

1. Add to introduction (which is currently 1-2 sentences. Add info about founding of group, who founded it, when, where it is based, also add what branch of military it is apart of (Planalto Military command).
2. Add more to the "Creation" section, which is light, and struggles with grammatical sense. Information about the structure of the command, and larger Brazilian military can be added. Also, the actual brigades of C Op Esp will be added.
3. A larger problem with the whole article is the inability of the author to write correctly. Most of the article is not correct grammatically, despite the impressive content in the article. I will have to go through and re-word and check for grammar in order to bring the article up to reading speed. BriRHP31 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC) :Honestly, I think the grammatical / style issues are a product of translation difficulties as someone (or a computer translator) went from Portuguese to English. Let me know if you need help. Katherine.Holt (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The top section makes claims about the location of the command without citations. It might also be more appropriate to have the information in the body of the article. Wldub (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information under Creation of C Op Esp would be better placed under a different section because it is talking about their current capabilities. Wldub (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also too many peacock statements. Wldub (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some minor structural and grammatical issues, my main issues is that there are no citations throughout the entire article. Admittedly it's short, but I would like to see more footnotes, especially with all the peacock statements. Sokeefe19 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bdaopesp.eb.mil.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024193453/http://www.exercito.gov.br/ to http://www.exercito.gov.br/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024193453/http://www.exercito.gov.br/ to http://www.exercito.gov.br/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]