Talk:Einar Mäkinen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• In January 1916, he became involved in the Finnish Jäger Movement, where Finnish volunteers received military training in Germany. Did he move to Germany in January 1916? The subsequent sentence indicates he's there, but it is unclear when he made the move.
  • Clarified in text: Moved to Germany January 1916. My sources say 7 Jan, but are not clear whether it's the date when he left Finland or arrived Germany.
• Rank of captain would be better off wikilinked to the more specific Captain (armed forces)
  • Done.
• The term "general headquarters" (of the army) are given first abbreviated (as General HQ) and then in spelled out in full two paragraphs further on. This should be reversed.
  • Done.
• Suggest replacing ...but the couple divorced in 1943. In 1943, Mäkinen married... with "...but the couple divorced in 1943. The same year, Mäkinen married..." to avoid repetition of the number so close together.
  • Changed, this reads way better.
• ... of whom one died aged 18 and one aged 3. should have spelled out numbers per WP:NUMERAL
  • Done.
• Does In 1934, Mäkinen was made the head of the Ministry of Defence (later General HQ) department in charge of mobilization. mean Mäkinen transferred from the MoD to the GHQ or did he perform the duty at both? You might want to clarify this situation.
  • Clarified this: there were a bunch of different "offices" in charge of mobilization related stuff creating a big mess that even the contemporary people hated.
• Also regarding the preceding sentence, did/does the General HQ have "departments" or would there be another term for that organisational unit? You might be correct on this, I'm just wondering.
  • Finnish sources use both toimisto (office) and department (osasto) where departments appear to contain offices. Also, a random "section" (fin. jaosto) every once in a while, just to make life interesting. I double-checked the sources and it should now be consistent.
• I'd suggest merging the first (single-sentence) paragraph of "During the Continuation War" section per MOS:PARAGRAPH, but that's not essential.
  • Done.
• What is the "National Labor Office"? I'd suggest you to add a brief explanation such as "National Labor Office, the body tasked with X".
  • Coming back to the "Finns can't decide what to call things" thing. I've modified this to be as faithful as possible to the source and added a brief description of what kinds of affairs Mäkinen dealt with.
• In ...routing and partial destruction of two Soviet divisions... I assume those are two of the 32nd Army. Is that correct? Either way, you might clarify this (ideally identfy the divisions if possible).
  • Yes, it was the 176th and 289th. Text modified to explicitly note this.
• What was/is the main business of Parava Oy? I'd suggest specifying (I was left wondering what it was), or at least stating if it had anything to do with the military or not.
  • I'll look into this a bit more (because I'm interested too), but I can't seem to find any information on this. "OY" is just Finnish for Ltd/LLC/GmbH, so it's possible this was just random small company that didn't do anything noteworthy.
    • Looks like distribution of electronics - at least in 1967. Found them on p.40 here [1]. Quite likely not worth exploring in detail at GA-level. --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• The roles of the quartermaster general and the acting chief of the general staff might be included in the lede.
  • Added to lede.
• Likewise his role in the defence against the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk offensive and in the Battle of Ilomantsi should be mentioned in the lede. I trust a couple of sentences would cover this and the preceding item sufficiently. I think those would cover the most significant aspects of his biography.
  • Added to lede, which got a bit long so I split it into two paras.
• The article appears stable and neutrally worded, covering all major aspects of the topic (no action required)
• No duplicate/dab links, checklinks/reflinks found no problems (no action required)
• Earwig's copyvio detector indicates no issues. (no action required)
• Sourcing appears in order, the prose is fully covered by consistently formatted refs, AGF on Finnish sources. (no action required)
• Photo is properly licensed, caption appears to be suitable (no action required)
• Infobox appears generally in order, except it lists the Svir–Petrozavodsk offensive as a battle, but that name is not mentioned in the body prose. I see it is a part of the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk offensive - and this should be somehow tackled - preferably by explaining in the body prose and optionally by creating a bullet for the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk offensive and associated "sub-bullet" for the Svir–Petrozavodsk offensive in the infobox.
  • Agree this wasn't optimal. In my view, the "technically most correct" option would be a four-level hierarchy of Continuation War -> Vyborg–Petrozavodsk -> Svir–Petrozavodsk -> Battle of Ilomantsi, but that seems excessively deep. As Svir–Petrozavodsk is not even it's own page right now, I modified the hierarchy to Continuation War -> Vyborg–Petrozavodsk -> Battle of Ilomantsi.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is just about everything I have here. Nice work overall.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: Thanks a ton, these all look like excellent points! I expect I'll be able to get these tackled by next weekend at the latest, and I'll ping you once they are all handled. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no rush Ljleppan. Ping me whenever you think you're ready.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: I think I got them all now, but let me know if I missed/misunderstood anything. The comments were all very useful, so if you notice anything further I'd be happy to do another round :) -Ljleppan (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me have another look and I'll ping you once I go through this once again.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No rush on my part -Ljleppan (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order - passing. Nice work Ljleppan!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomobe03, for your review. This was very helpful :) -Ljleppan (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)