Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009.

Winter War

 * Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. 30 November 2009 will be the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently GA, and A-Class on WikiProject Military history. Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Restart, old nom. Images, alt text and dabs cleared.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)


 * Comments -
 * What makes http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6299 a reliable source?
 * Semi-reliable. Other book source (Jowett; Snodgrass) gives pretty similar figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * LIkewise http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/english?
 * A source is semi-reliable. However, added more reliable Helsingin Sanomat. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article Karelian question in Finnish politics. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;Overall a fine article on an obscure (for most of the world) conflict. My main issue is that the lead section does not properly cover the actual war. I would at least expect to see mention of the motti tactics, the Mannerheim line, and the main Russian assaults. The word "revanche" is used in the article but not explained or wikilinked. But otherwise I think the article is of FA quality. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support but I would like to see one or two lines in the section Winter_War about the current politics about the return of Karelia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Offered some suggestions at the first FAC and will do so here as well. I'm a bit concerned about a few of the simple typographical errors, but most of what I read was okay. Best of luck.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Soviet–Finnish prewar negotiations: Commas before and after first use of Boris Yartsev?
 * Not sure, but a comma added. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * War preparations: "Furthermore, the Finns would lease the Hanko Peninsula for the thirty years". I'm a bit confused by "the thirty years" since I don't see a mention of such a time period before this. Not sure what this is supposed to be referring to.
 * "have to" added? Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The shelling of Mainila: Remove space before three-reference block.
 * "claimed that the Finnish response was hostile and the non-aggression pact." Sentence cuts off abruptly, and an important part is not present.
 * The section now re-edited by Illythr. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Soviet policy and military offensive: Delink the date here. Linked days have been discouraged in most cases for a while now.
 * Done. Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Finnish order of battle: "The frontier with the Soviet Union was more than ." Get that excess period out of there, while you're handling these other tasks.
 * Not sure, suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Nowhere in the article does it actually state why it's called the "Winter War". Yes, it was fought during the northern winter of 1939-40, but assuming that people can infer this without having the information supplied to them assumes a particular POV of the reader. Perhaps the lead sentence in the article could have something like "during the northern winter of 1939-40" added to it?
 * The puppet regime was unsuccessful and was quietly disbanded during the winter of 1940.
 * Is a more precise date available from primary references to comply with WP:SEASON?
 * If a more precise date cannot be sourced from primary references, this still needs amendment because it is ambiguous. Which "winter of 1940" is intended here, 1939-40 or 1940-41?
 * "in early 1940." Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had consented to Soviet demands in autumn 1939: Does not comply with WP:SEASON. I suggest rewording this to something like "in late 1939" or "by mid-October, 1939" to comply with WP:SEASON.
 * "by October 1939." Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The plural of "aircraft" in English is "aircraft", not "aircrafts". -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 03:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Peltimikko (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a great article and I enjoyed reading it. I do have a few comments; once these have been resolved, I'll be ready to support.
 * Comments

Explanation of some of the edits I made:
 * Deleted "However because of failures" - felt this was unnecessary, as the note should only be about who commanded when. If you wish to reinstate it, I have no problem with that, but it should be rephrased, because this wording is vague.
 * Deleted "While the Government of Sweden was aware..." - I think the information that they were aware is unnecessary; unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it's fairly reasonable to assume that governments know whom their militaries are cooperating with.

Comments:
 * Shouldn't references be placed within the notes in the infobox? That makes for less clutter.
 * Multiple sources used here. Besides, every detailed number is continuously under doubt, so in many cases numbers presented need good source + commentary. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. My question is: would it be good to place the other refs inside the narrative footnotes that explain the numbers, so that fewer refs appear directly in the infobox? Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you get to the total of 235 aircraft? 114 + 7 + <100 = <221
 * 173 aircraft and 43 reserve aircraft. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sovereignty was fully achieved in May, 1918 after a short civil war and the expulsion of Bolshevik troops." - you obviously don't want to go into too much detail here, but I am afraid this is unclear. In what way was sovereignty not fully achieved before? What were those Bolsheviks doing there when they had already recognized the country's independence?
 * Bolsheviks recognized the country's independence, but they also wanted a revolution. This was one of reasons for Finnish Civil War. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second reading, it looks good enough. Ucucha 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ucucha 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "two parishes" - I would consider the USSR to be among the most unlikely countries in the world to be divided into parishes.
 * Municipalities. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you address the historiography of the casus belli twice in separate paragraphs?
 * "Fewer than half of the officers remained in total." - lead says that "up to" (i.e., less than) 50% were purged.
 * Added "over 30,000", which is also mentioned in book Talvisodan pikkujättiläinen. Peltimikko (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "more than 1000 km long" - any chance on getting the precise figure?
 * "Soviet movements were frozen solid" - beautiful wording
 * "Although the Karelian Isthmus front was less active in December than in January," - can't understand this. It's not the other way around, is it?
 * You are correct. Done. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * German invasion plan - of Finland? Or Sweden? Or is this the invasion of Denmark and Norway they actually carried out?
 * Scandinavian Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark - not Finland). Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit weird to start talking about aerial and naval warfare after the part about the peace negotiations. Perhaps you should move the entire negotiations part to the "Peace of Moscow" section. Or is this established MILHIST structure?
 * Oppose for now. Sadly, because this is a great article that is really very close, but we can't have an FA that contradicts itself (on how many Soviet officers were purged, see comment above). Ucucha 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is factually deficient. This piece of writing is unsophisticated in both content and style. The presentations of the Soviet military concerns and of the negotiations are superficial and minimal. There is a totally misleading insinuation—cleverly just an insinuation—that the USSR actually wanted to reacquire all of Finland. No use is made of the book, Anthony F. Upton, 1974, Finland, 1939-1940. Presenting the progress of the hostilities to the level of minutiae is unencyclopedic. Even leaving objections to the content aside, the lead does not represent the content well; this is a very poor lead. Yes, the article can boast photos and a long list of references most of them not in English, and often this is what earns an FA. But the way things are is not necessarily the way they ought to be. Some trivial flaws: (1) the word "operation" in the lead is inappropriate; (2) the language labeling in the bibliography is not in the latest Wikipedia style because it does not use the "language icon" template. I will apply them myself. Hurmata (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed, so response in user talk page. Peltimikko (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


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