Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Background of the Winter War

Background of the Winter War
This peer review discussion has been closed. I aim for making the Winter War and its subarticle Background of the Winter War (now under peer reviews) the A-class (maybe GA) article for 30 November 2009, the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Comments and suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

 * You have mixed page formats: pp and pages
 * ✅ Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Source 1 is used a lot, even a majority of times, but the page range is 13-46. Sometimes subjective comments are made, eg about Finland not having confidence in the LoN, but this is not targeted at a certain 1-4 pages.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ references fixed and a source book added, though subjective comments partly under construction. Peltimikko (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Partial dates are not to be linked
 * ✅ Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead needs to be larger  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cplakidas

 * A thorough copyediting is needed to improve style.
 * Start hand.svg Extra hands needed Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know :). I am going through the article now, making some changes. There are some points were the narrative is unclear, they will be added below as I come across them. Constantine  ✍  14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I share YellowMonkey's concern about source 1, as well as for the presence of possibly subjective views. It would be better if you cited the exact page (the same applies to source 3), and also if you relied less upon it. It would be good to find further sources to provide additional support for the many statements about intents & views held by people or groups.
 * ✅ see comments above. Peltimikko (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, for the article to be complete and able to stand alone, there should be a short section of a few paragraphs at the end dealing with the events that followed, i.e. the Winter War, the peace and the Continuation War, and perhaps the post-war Finlandization as well. This article deals in essence with Finnish-Soviet relations in the interwar period, and it would be useful to put it in a more complete perspective in the end.
 * Aftermath of the Winter War will be published later. Peltimikko (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, in terms of content covered, I think it is quite comprehensive. Constantine  ✍  13:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Further points:
 * the section on "Finnish–Swedish co-operation": there is a claim that "the question of the Finnish Jäger troops, who had received their military training in Germany" impaired relations with Sweden and the other Scandinavian states. How exactly? what was this "question"? Also, while Sweden was obviously the prime candidate for an alliance, a reference is made to the other Scandinavian countries as well. There should be at least a small reference to relations with them, e.g. "relations with Denmark and Norway remained cordial" or whatever (the same goes for the Baltic states below, where only Estonia is expanded upon). Why did Finland not have high expectations from the League? What was the "Committee of Erich" named after? Constantine   ✍  14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweden, as the largest Scandinavian country, was the key to Scandinavian security. Other countries, Denmark and Norway, would have probably follow its decisions. So, Sweden = Scandinavia. 1920s Finland was a part of weak alliance of Poland and the Baltic countries, but it was over by late 1920s. I have not yet found the correct english name for the "alliance", maybe "Edge State Policy"?. Estonia is Finno-Ugric country, so close relations are natural. All small European countries had high expectations from the League in the 1920s, as it was meant to prevent wars and disarm. "Committee of Erich" was lead by Rafael Erich. Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * the section on Estonia: "From the Finnish point of view, the close relations with Estonia did not exclude the Scandinavian neutrality policy." what exactly is meant here? the "Scandinavian neutrality policy" is not referred to before, and the impression gained from the previous paragraphs indicate that Finland actively sought a military alliance with Scandinavian countries. "Nevertheless, the military relations were top secret, and the countries held joint military exercises." How can two countries that hold joint exercises keep their military relations top secret? Or was there some particular aspect that was kept secret? Constantine  ✍  14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was top secret for public, but the Soviets probably knew most of it, as later it was a one of the demands in 1939 negotiations. But the Soviets did not know everything, for example the radio cable at the bottom of the sea, used later during Winter War. Read more Finnish–Estonian defense cooperation (needs also copy-editing). Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * a mix of British and US English spelling is used in the article. Please standardize to one of them. Constantine  ✍  14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * British spelling would be best option. My not so sophisticated "broken english" from early years of the elementary school, can only stress that British use the word "lorry" and the Americans "truck". Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * the section on "Stalin and the protection of Leningrad": there are several issues here, regarding the extremely simplistic portrayal of the Soviet Union. The statement about the "collapse" of Soviet economy and agriculture is very dubious. While Stalin's breakneck industrialization and collectivization policies certainly came at an enormous human price, to say that the Soviet economy "collapsed" is grossly exaggerated, and the industrial base acquired would prove crucial in WWII. Some more expert and specialized sources should be used here. Also, the shift in Soviet foreign policy from "international revolution" towards "socialism in one country" and the slow re-emergence of the traditional Russian aspirations in the 1930s, which also coincided with/were caused by the rise and consolidation of Stalin's power, could take some additional explaining, again, with more specialized sources than those used. In general, I would suggest merging this section with the above, and emphasizing the two distinct periods in terms of relations: 1920s and early 30s - the Soviet Union seeks normalization (and the reasons why: relative weakness, priority on economic & industrial development, international isolation), late 1930s - expansionist policies (and the reasons therefore). Constantine  ✍  21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right about the "collapse", the claim should had a better sourced and explained. Though, we have to take consider that Russian Civil War and later Stalin's collectivization did couse huge famines, where at least the latter was deliberated (a part of the Stalin's ideological action to create new Soviet-human, no matter the human cost). "The world revolution" and "state interest relation to national security" is taken from a book by A.O. Chubaryan, Academnician from the Russian Academy of Sciences. But again, you are right, this section needs improvement. Peltimikko (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * a few remarks on the lead: per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the article. Currently, it does not. It should mention in overview Finland's quest for a military alliance with Sweden and Estonia, her ambiguous relationship with the Soviets in the interwar, as well as the events of 1938-1939. There are three major sections in the article so I suggest summarizing each in a distinct paragraph in the lead. Constantine  ✍  22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Peltimikko (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * a minor point in the section on the 1938 negotiations: is the phrase "By the winter of 1939" true, or an error for "winter of 1938"? Because if it is the former, the section's title should be changed. Constantine  ✍  22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Last of the first phase negotiations were held winter 1939. Still, winter 1939 did not offer anything new, so title could remain the same (or change). Peltimikko (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ On second thought, the title is changed and added a mention of Sten's department. Peltimikko (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)