Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2018 [1].

Winter War

edit
Nominator(s): Manelolo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Winter War, fought between Finland and Soviet Russia in 1939-1940 with the David barely holding onto its sovereignty against the Goliath. It was a FAC last time in 2009, closely missing promotion (after amazing article development by Peltimikko). Before that, it was approved as an A and a GA article. In 2010, its GA status was kept. I spent over 100 edits on it recently to 1) reformat the reflist correctly, 2) copyedit the whole article, 3) remove unverifiable information, 4) balance structuring, 5) address issues in last FA review etc. etc. Finland turned 100 years old a week ago which partly spurred my editing frenzy. Manelolo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Generally suggest including more legends in map captions
Will work on it later this evening. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Images with the PD-Finland50 tag should all include a US PD tag (some do, some don't) as well as information on the first publication of the image
Added US-PD to the one's missing it. First publication date would be when the archives were opened up and everything released to the public domain? Don't know the exact date, but assuming this was fairly quickly after the wars. If the pics are incompatible, an option is to replace them with definite CC BY 4.0 pics from here [2]. Shouldn't take more than a day. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, do you have a source indicating that the opening of the archive correlated with everything being released to the public domain? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red Army Finnish flag Winter War.png and Red_army_party_convention_winter_war.png as well most likely? No. 3 "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication" would be my fair assessment of the rationale. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, when and where was first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to boldly WP:TNT the picture situation since they would not clearly stand the test of time (or this review). I removed all the pictures with contentious licenses and started replacing them with higher quality CC BY 4.0 versions. Even found a couple of the ones already on the article. Will also search for Soviet pictures with a proper license. Apologies! I was completely oblivious to the outdated licensing and just concentrated on prose and refs. Manelolo (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ping me when images are stable and I'll re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, stable. Manelolo (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the new legends, but the XX/XXX etc is not visible at present size - suggest scaling up these maps
Thx Nikkimaria! Upscaled detailed maps by 2, overall maps by 1.5-1.75. Manelolo (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 21: Harvard error
  • Ref 82: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 90: lacks page number
  • Ref 91: ditto
  • Ref 104: ditto
  • Ref 171: hyphen issue
  • Ref 172: lacks p. number
  • Ref 178: hyphen issue
  • Ref 198: lacks p. number
  • Ref 202: ditto
Either fixed or removed as unnecessary.
  • English sources: I can't find citations to the following listed sources:
  • Lieven
  • Nenye
  • Sandser
  • Soviet Information Bureau 1948
  • Tuuri
Moved to further reading or removed.
  • Foreign sources:
*There are two instances in the sources of Leskinen and Juutilainen 1999 in the sources, but these don't seem to be differentiated in the citations Deleted the obsolete one.
*No citations to Manninen 2002 Moved to further reading.
*Why is the Krivosheyev book listed as a foreign source? The book seems to be in English. Good question, moved to English.
  • General: There is inconsistency in showing publisher locations in the book sources. Either show all, or none.
All removed.

Other than the above, the sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the review, I think I have addressed all of your issues. Manelolo (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack

edit

Will take some time to read it trough! More comments will follow.

  • and the nation had nearly solved its problems with extreme political movements.[46] – I don't like this sentence. First, it does not seem to be entirely neutral. Second, I do not feel well-informed here: The wording "solved" implies that the government did something actively to reject those movements, but what was it?
Hmm, amended to a bit more neutral/mellow. There were counter-actions by the government (surely, as with anything resembling a rebellion), but was trying to keep from it bloating.
  • The new Bolshevik Russian government was insecure, – Insecure about what? I am not sure what this should tell me.
Amended to "fragile".
  • The new Bolshevik Russian government was insecure, and civil war had broken out in Russia in November 1917. Thus, the Soviet Union (USSR) recognized the new Finnish government just three weeks after the Finnish declaration of independence.[51] – First, the wording "the Finnish declaration of independence" seems a bit repetitive here, as this declaration was just introduced. Reading flow would be nicer if at least "the Finnish" would be omitted. Second, can you really name the reasons why it was only three weeks? Wouldn't it be safer to write something like "Thus, the Soviet Union (USSR) abstained from military measures and recognized the new Finnish government just three weeks after the declaration"? To have "just three weeks" only as an additional fact?
Amended to a) reduce repetition & help flow b) explain that the recognition came so quickly because the Bolsheviks couldn't hold onto all of the former empire's ground
  • which culminated in a failed coup attempt in 1932. Thereafter the ultra-nationalist Patriotic People's Movement had a minor presence—at most 14 seats out of 200 in the Finnish parliament. – I am not sure what the latter sentence is supposed to add to the big picture. What has the minor presence of the ultra-nationalist Movement to do with the failed coup attempt? Did the coup attempt increase or decrease this presence?
Hmm, tried to rephrase it a bit for logical continuity, see if its ok!
  • You write relations between the two countries remained strained, but a few sentences later an almost identical sentence appears: However, relations between the two countries remained largely de minimis.
True, clunkier de minimis phrase removed.
  • Link to the full reference of "Hallberg 2006" not working
Fixed with source review!
  • From a Soviet point of view, the boundary with Finland reflected an internal border of the Russian Empire that was never thought to become an international boundary when drawn.[59] – Not sure, but this sentence appears quite strange to me. Of course, after they conquered Finland they never thought of giving it up again. This sentence seems a bit meaningless and could possibly be omitted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A late addition by another user. Since WP is a communal project, I did my best to keep it and integrated it into the sentence before it! See if better.

Thx for the review so far! I've tried to address your points! Manelolo (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I now read the article thoroughly and also compared with the version of the German Wikipedia, which is already featured. I now feel that there is still quite a lot to do here. I will start with the "Background" section.

  • these attempts ruined Russia's relations with the Finns – since Finland did not exist at the time, is "Finns" referring to Baltic Finns? If yes, please link it. Refers to Finns. Finland has existed since medieval times, though not as an independent state. Linked.
  • The 1920s and early 1930s proved a politically unstable time in Finland. – This sounds like these unstable times only started in the 1920s. I think they were the direct result of the civil war, which divided the society. True, amended to "The period after the Civil War till the early 1930s" for extra accuracy.
  • The whole fourth paragraph of "Politics in Finland" lists several details, but during my first read, I wasn't really able to interpret those, because context is lacking. And I think, for the context, there should be much more about the civil war, which was only very briefly mentioned previously. Wasn't it the civil war which devided the society into "reds" and "whites", and that the continuing rivalries after the vicotry of the "whites" were the origin of these political instabilities (and did also stressed the relations with the Soviet Union)? The article really should explain background like that. I would add 1) who was fighting who in the civil war, 2) what the outcome was of the civil war and 3) how the civil war affected the further development of the country. Addressed by adding a bit more detail per your suggestions.
  • In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions across the Soviet border, the Viena and Aunus expeditions. – Again, background is lacking. It would really add to the understanding of this war! What was the goal of these volunteer forces, why attacing the Soviet Union? You should mention Greater Finland in this context. Amended per suggestions.
  • The whole background section seems a bit biased: It has a section "Politics of Finland", but very little from the Soviet point of view. Especially: What were the exact reasons for starting the war in the first place for the Soviet Union? In the case war is braking out, Stalin thought there would be 1) a direct thread to Leningrad due to pro-Finland separatists in Karelia, 2) Finland and the Balticum would allow invasion into Russia, both via land and via see, 3) Coastal defenses of Finland and the balkan states would restrict the Soviet fleet. (Carl van Dyke, 1997, p. 13 ff) True, amended headings accordingly to be less biased. I am hesitant to add much more this section since there is an actual Background of the Winter War article linked under the heading. But added slightly more to Stalin's ambitions and views (incl. Van Dyke's assertion), expanded paragraph from lede into the Shelling of Mainila subheading on Soviet conquest motivation and amended points here and there.
  • The Soviet offer divided the Finnish government, but was eventually rejected. This seems to be lacking the reasons which lead to the rejection. The German article states: The Finnish secret service informed about the poor constitution of the red army, and this is why Finnish Foreign minister didn't believe the Soviets would start a war (Van Dyke, p. 19 ff). Added "but was eventually rejected with respect to the opinion of the public and Parliament." The claim by Van Dyke might be true for the foreign minister Eljas Erkko's opinion.
  • Just after the start of the war, the Finnish government resigned and was replaced by a new government under Risto Ryti, because of misjudgement of the thread of war. This is also an important bit which is missing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Mentioned in the Start of the invasion and political operations subheading. Amended it a bit: "In a further reshuffling, Aimo Cajander's cabinet was replaced Risto Ryti and his cabinet, with Väinö Tanner as foreign minister, due to opposition to Cajander's pre-war politics."[reply]

Thx again Jens Lallensack! I think I have addressed all of your concerns. Manelolo (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Manelolo, for carefully addressing all these points, the background section looks great now! Not much to criticize in the rest of the article, but I would like to add some points on the "casualities and losses" section. If you could address at least the neutrality issues, I will be happy to support!

  • In total, 25,904 persons died or went missing and 43,557 were wounded on the Finnish side during the war for a total of around 70,000 casualties. A detailed classification of dead and missing is as follows – for all these numbers, it might be a good idea to add if they are 1) official Finish numbers published immediately after the war; 2) estimations published by Finnish historians years after the war, or 3) numbers published by historians of foreign countries. This can be of importance for interpreting these numbers. True, once again! Added disclaimer that by Finnish historians after the war.
  • I would try to get as much neutrality as possible. You write "Dead and missing of the Soviet Union have been estimated around 126,875–167,976", and if I see it correctly, you cite it with a Finnish source. Perhaps add that this is an estimate of a Finnish historian? All of the Soviet estimates are by Russian historians, but Yuri Kilin is bilingual and thus one source is in Finnish. Added disclaimer that they are Russian historian estimates.
  • Also please provide the same information for the Finnish site (How many deaths on the Finnish site according to Soviet sources published directly after the war? Numbers are available in an 1972 article, which can be found online here). Added the official Finn figure from your site and ref (David Dallin). I did not add estimates of Finn deaths by Soviet sources since the article doesn't have them the other way around either.
  • The official Soviet figure in 1940 was 48,745 dead. In 1990, Mikhail Semiryaga claimed 53,522 dead and N. I. Baryshnikov 53,500 dead. In 1997, Grigoriy Krivosheyev claimed 126,875 dead and missing, and total casualties of 391,783 with 188,671[19] In 1991, Yuri Kilin claimed 63,990 dead and total casualties of 271,528; in 2007 he revised the estimate of dead to 134,000 dead.[20] – This is not that engaging to read. I would add an introductory sentence like "The official Soviet figure in 1940 was 48,745 dead. These numbers are disputed in both western and russian literature." I modified it a bit according to your suggestion, see if it works better.
  • 5,572 Soviet soldiers were captured – there are rumors that, after repatriation, these soldiers were killed by the soviet NKWD (Van Dyke, p. 191; Trotter, p. 263). Perhaps something to add. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Added with similar wording as the German Wiki and same refs.[reply]

Thank you immensely Jens Lallensack for very detailed scrutiny! I think I have addressed all of your points. In general on casualty NPOV: I modified it so that prose on both Finn and Soviet estimates are pretty similar. First official figure after the war and then estimates by respective national historians with disclaimers on the source. Cheers! Manelolo (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, great work! I am supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kges1901

edit

Good work on this article. One question:

Thx for the vigilant eye! Very true, it was the 150th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) that reinforced Taipale, must have been a typo. Manelolo (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: However, not all of these reforms had been completed by the time Germans initiated Operation Barbarossa 15 months later The entire first paragraph of the Soviet section is missing a citation, and may be incomplete.Kges1901 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cite had been accidentally deleted. Fetched it back from history. Manelolo (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns have been addressed. Next year I may create some of those redlinked Soviet division articles. Kges1901 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

edit
  • Reference no. 59 needs to be corrected. It states "p. 226]]". The right bracket needs to be removed. Done.
  • Chapter "Soviet–Finnish relations and politics" is a lengthy text that spans a period from 1918 to 1922, without any citation until no. 56. It states "After Soviet involvement in the Finnish Civil War in 1918, no formal peace treaty was signed. In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions across the Soviet border, the Viena and Aunus expeditions. In 1920, Finnish communists based in the USSR attempted to assassinate the former Finnish White Guard Commander-in-Chief, Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. On 14 October 1920, Finland and Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Tartu, confirming the new Finnish–Soviet border as the old border between the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland and Imperial Russia proper. In addition, Finland received Petsamo, with its ice-free harbour on the Arctic Ocean. Despite the signing of the treaty, relations between the two countries remained strained". At least one or two references for these claims should be included.
Added two sources dealing specifically with that period.
Hmm, Nikkimaria suggested upscaling during image review so that the legends (XX, XXX etc) are visible which I agree helps someone who wants to follow the pics in detail while reading. Thus, I shrunk them by 10%.

Thx for the review! Your points addressed so far. Manelolo (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chapter "Battles in Kainuu" has an image with a caption that says: "Soviet T-26 Model 1937 advancing aggressively, as described by the photographer, on the eastern side of Kollaa River during the battle of Kollaa". "Aggressively" is not a neutral word here. Who described it as such? If the author of the photograph called it as such, it should be in quotes. Amended as suggested.
  • Chapter "Soviet Air Forces" states: "The largest bombing raid against the capital of Finland, Helsinki, occurred on the first day of the war. The capital was bombed only a few times thereafter. All in all, Finland lost five percent of total man-hour production time because of Soviet bombings, considered a low amount. Nevertheless, Soviet air attacks affected thousands of civilians, killing 957.[146]". This is unclear to me: did 957 civilians die from bombing raids in all of Finland or just in Helsinki alone? Amended to be absolute clear: all of Finland is meant.
  • Several "red links" are visible in the article. Just to name a few: 155th Rifle Division, 104th Mountain Rifle Division, 123rd Rifle Division, 88th and 122nd Rifle Divisions. A couple of red links are OK, but since there are quite a few of them here, I would either write an article about them or simply unlink them.
Hmm, I was thinking the same, but then again Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Red_links & WP:RED suggest that red linking is a positive effect: "In prose, if it seems that the level of red linking is overlinking, remember that red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions." The five you mentioned are the only red links in the whole article and a lot of Soviet divisions have an article for them, so I surmised that this is an ok level in terms of redlinking and being a driving force for article creation. Opinions?
Good point, amended as suggested. Manelolo (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I noticed: you need to include a "Casualties" section in the article. Casualties are currently only mentioned in the Infobox military conflict. These figures should be added in the "Aftermath" section in the text, as well.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, too obvious for me to realize! The casualties are pretty well estimated already in prose in the infobox notes, so won't be a hassle. I'll work on it next year, now off to holidays. Cheers! (added temporary exclamations to your msg as a reminder for now) Manelolo (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added casualties to the Aftermath section within respective nation.

Thx 3E1I5S8B9RF7! All of your points have been addressed now. Manelolo (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support
All my concerns have been addressed. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Great job.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: Nice work with this article. It looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • please check for consistency regarding English variation. I see "centre" (British English) but also "center" (US), and "favorite" (US) Done.
  • per the above, "buildup" or "build-up"? Done.
  • per the above, "mockup" or "mock-up"? Done.
  • "The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Army" --> "The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Armies"? Done.
  • "guerilla" --> "guerrilla" Done.
  • In the Works consulted section is there an OCLC number that could be added for the Langdon-Davies work? Found and added!

Thx a lot AustralianRupert! All suggestions amended. Manelolo (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: We have two supports for this article, but I notice that Jens Lallensack commented that "I now feel that there is still quite a lot to do here". Given this, I think we either need Jens Lallensack to have another look, or we need further review (as that user seems quite inactive at the moment). Sarastro (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very occupied by real life lately, but I can now promise to finish the review until Tuesday, if that suffices! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sarastro1, four supports now as Jens' comments have been addressed. Manelolo (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: This is just about ready, but a few minor issues that I uncovered when doing the last few checks. We have a LOT of duplinks. I think someone needs to have a look at this as I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Additionally, a search reveals 17 instances of "however" which we should minimise (some reviewers would argue, perhaps with some justification, for their complete removal per WP:HOWEVER. Also, there are one or two "with noun plus -ing" constructions (see here) such as "With Stalin gaining absolute power through the Great Purge of 1938" which should be looked at. Once these have been tackled, we can promote. Sarastro (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, 1) all duplinks highlighting as red delinked 2) all howevers boldly removed and 3) fixed Stalin's with noun plus -ing, hopefully I found the other one too by searching for "with". Thx! Manelolo (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Winter_War/archive2&oldid=821353330"