So I have to say reading it now that you really need to do better on citations in the future. The article's current state is an absolute mess.

• Book sources have no page numbers.
• Seemingly half of the citations have obvious, red errors.
• There's usage of 'FamilySearch' for non-trivial factual claims despite the fact it's user-generated content. Another is a link to Letterboxd, unreliable for the exact same reason.
• In a very basic reading of the first couple paragraphs, I've seen at least one claim that outright isn't matched with a citation.
• Many links are dead with no archives.
  • Multiple of these still are marked "untitled", so functionally all you have to go off of is the date.
• There are no English translations of the source titles (which isn't required but is nice when effectively every source is in Portuguese).
• Reference names are weirdly shortened in a way you definitely don't have to since they're only visible in wikitext anyway (e.g. The London and China Telegraph, 1874 is shortened to "teleg"). This normally isn't terrible, but in this case, you're using Wiki Q, so to even have a bare minimum understanding of what's being referenced, you have to go to the Wikidata entry.
  • Taking that as an example, the Wikidata entry you created is titled "The London and China Telegraph, 1874", except The London and China Telegraph is a newspaper, and you're specifically citing the "Monday, July 6, 1874" edition, i.e. you've used a title that applies to many other issues of the paper (you also call it an instance of a "book").

---

TL;DR: Unfortunately an absolutely inscrutable spaghetti of citations that's going to take a ton of effort to untangle. You have, I think, ~11,000 edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia, so I know I'm not punching down by pointing out that this is an utterly unacceptable state for citations to be in. A Wikipedia article is functionally worthless without proper citations.