Talk:Background of the Winter War/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead has a bunch of short paragraphs that could easily be combined to form two or three longer paragraphs that are easier to read.
 * Done. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The section headers could be made significantly more concise. For example, "Background – Finnish politics before the war" could be changed to just "Background"; "Soviet–Finnish relations and politics before the War" could be changed to just "Soviet-Finnish relations"; and "Soviets begin military and political attack" could be changed to "Beginning of war" (the last is also less POV). These are just examples, and some of the subsection headers could also use a trim.
 * Done. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the First steps of the Republic section, it says "In 1920s and 1930s Finland was politically diverse.", but then goes on to discuss one party that was banned and only two other parties that participated in politics. Could some sort of a transition be added between these two thoughts.
 * The Communists were banned earlier, but extreme right IKL was never banned though Kekkonen tried it. Otherwise Finnish Parliament included various parties such National Coalition Party, National Progressive Party, Agriculture Party, Swedish People's Party, Social Democrats. So, pretty diverse I think. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, from this example, I see that they were diverse. However, my concern is that you say that the country was politically diverse, but then go on to give examples of only two parties, plus another that was banned, making it seem not all that diverse. Perhaps list the parties above as a way to show the diversity? Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added from Edwards. Peltimikko (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Finnish-Swedish Cooperation section it says "Finnish–Swedish relations improved consistently before the Winter War." Should this be "improved considerably"?
 * Done. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Diplomatic relations section, it says "nor expatriate Finnish communists from causing disturbances in Finland from their base in the Soviet Union." I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.
 * I removed "from their base in the Soviet Union", so link to Pork Mutiny should be enough. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the word "expatriate" doesn't make sense in this grammatical context, and so I really have no idea what you're trying to say with this sentence. Could you explain it in more detail here, so that I could possibly suggest a different word? Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This means "former" Finns. Most of Finnish Communist leaders moved/escaped to the Soviet Union after the Finnish Civil War in 1918. Sidelines: Later many of them were killed during the Great Terror in the USSR. Some of them returned to Finland after the WWII and created their career in the Finnish parliament. Please, suggest a different word and/or sentence. Peltimikko (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, makes sense now. I was reading it as a verb, not a noun. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Negotiations from 1938 to early 1939 section, it says "Holsti was rather anti-German, so the resignation set off rumours." First, is this statement really relevant to the article? Second, if so, could you explain why this would set off rumors?
 * I think it a good example of the incident, that the Finns did not want send a message to Moscow, that the country was under German influence. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But if Holsti was anti-German, wouldn't the Finns want to keep him around, in order to send a message to Moscow that they weren't helping the Germans? What were the rumors? Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Holsti resigned for his personal reasons. A situation was tense, and nobody did not want to give expression to the Soviets that Holsti resigned because of his anti-German opinions. The Finns, or actually Kekkonen, acted quickly before there would start any rumours. Peltimikko (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more explanation to the article to make this example clearer. Again, please feel free to tweak or revert. As it was, however, the sentence feels out of place and extremely random - with no real connection to the rest of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Same section, "probably the NKVD". Please spell out what the NKVD is.
 * Done. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Soviet demands in late 1939 section, "by enlisting the German arms dealer Josef Veltjens, who in turn organised a considerable supply action with other countries." I'm not sure what the last clause of this sentence is trying to say.
 * I did not added it originally, and I do not know the case, but I cut the sentence a bit. Maybe it is not bad idea to keep it. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Please make sure that all non-English sources have the language listed. Some do, but I noticed a few that didn't.
 * Why are some of the books formatted as split references and some not?
 * I cleaned it a bit. Under "citations" should be author & editor & page number, and the language is listed in full "Bibliography". Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref #38 (Seppl, a step ahead of politics). The title shouldn't be in bold, and please format like the others, with applicable information.
 * Done. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a fact tag to one place where I would like to see a reference.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All of the images captions are quite long. Is there any way these can be shortened, possibly by moving some of the information to the body of the article?
 * I am not sure. It seems quite good this way. Ideas? Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you've trimmed a couple of them, and overall they look good now. Two that I still have thoughts on: the League of Nations image caption could be trimmed, as much of this information is duplicated in the article, and the Jager troops image caption could be trimmed by moving the information on who they were to the body of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trimming the Jager troops image. I did some trimming on the League of Nations image; if you don't link it, please feel free to tweak or revert completely.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thank you for trimming the Jager troops image. I did some trimming on the League of Nations image; if you don't link it, please feel free to tweak or revert completely.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Here are a few comments for now. I am being called away from my computer now, so I will have to do the rest of the review tomorrow. Please feel free to start working on these comments in the meantime if you wish. Let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall the article looks good. There are a few issues with prose, MOS, referencing and images that need to be taken care of, but they shouldn't take all that long to address. Please let me know if you have any questions, either here (I have this page watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck the comments above that I feel are completed, and responded to the rest. Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck the rest. However, I've made a few tweaks to the article, and I am awaiting your approval on them before I pass the article. Please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article looks good right now. Peltimikko (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! I am passing the article now. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)