Talk:Finnish Defence Intelligence Agency/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm reviewing this article with the proviso that I know nothing at all about this agency. However, I do have some knowledge of the technical types of intelligence gathering it conducts. The article is in very good shape, and I have the following comments:

~~"is a combined signals" - would it be more accurate to say that it's 'the' such unit for the Finnish military, or are they other equivalents?~~ Very true, amended.
Do the sources really say that the Soviet units targeted in preemtive attacks at the battle of Tali-Ihantala were "destroyed"? Such a term is usually only used when almost all members of a military unit become casualties or prisoners, which rarely results from artillery and air bombardments (this rarely occurred during World War I, for instance). It seems more likely that the units would have been rendered ineffective or similar.

Hmm, I took destroyed from the only reliable English source I could find Finland at War: The Continuation and Lapland Wars 1941–45 and here's the exact quote: "For this battle, the Finns had amassed most of their army's artillery. By using the targeting device known as the Korjausmuunnin (trajectory corrector) developed by the Inspector of Artillery General Vilho Nenonen, the front-line observers were able to coordinate and concentrate the fire of multiple batteries. This was a technological feat unique to any of the fighting forces of that time. Between 29 June and 6 July, the Finnish artillery managed to repeatedly halt and destroy enemy concentrations still assembling at their jumping-off points. On 30 such occasions the forces destroyed were larger than battalion size."

Likewise, the English-dubbed document (old and horrible quality, sorry) Miracle of Tali-Ihantala details some of the individual barrages here and there (e.g. 23:58). At 53:00, the documentary states that roughly 70% of the Red Army's 22,000 casualties were caused by artillery and mortar fire. If we assume that a battalion is around 500-700 persons, then the over 30 formations larger than battalions destroyed sounds plausible.

Therefore, I added the above quote to the relevant ref and balanced out the wording a bit by keeping destroyed where it is clearly supported by the quote and put "halted, render ineffective" elsewhere. Also added a bit more data, like the "70% of 22,000", and amended the total ordnance to a ballpark due to a bit of conflicting sources. Does it seem like a fair view now?

Those changes look good. 70% of casualties from artillery was pretty common by this stage of World War II (artillery was by far the main source of casualties on both sides in the Normandy Campaign, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Did the SIGINT specialists who fled to Sweden in 1944 return, or did the military have to rebuild its SIGINT capacity from scratch in the 1950s?~~

True, it ends a bit cold. I added some stuff of how the flight concluded on what I could find. To my understanding, there are no sources who dare to reliably assess how SIGINT was "reborn" after the wars and the cover ups. Most likely old staff were used to man and build the new Finnish Intelligence Research Establishment, but I believe this cannot be confirmed by any sources and the Establishment rather just pops up in history. Thus I have left any OR out. Suggestions if a link or wording of any sort is needed there?

That looks good. As the article says that most details about this agency are classified, some gaps in its history are to be expected. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Establishment expanded throughout the 1960s by building radar stations" - do the sources specify that these were radar stations? Radio intercept stations would seem to be closer to its mission (of covert intelligence gathering, rather than overt surveillance, noting that radar tends to be manpower-intensive to operate and is easily detected)

After doublechecking, the sources say communication stations translated literally. But these are more descriptive, "general history & civilian-type" sources and I don't think there is any reliable source stating what were/are the actual technical definitions of these stations although you are most likely correct. Amended to communication station, is it a fair term?

'Communications' still implies that the stations broadcast, when they almost certainly didn't. I'd suggest using either 'intercept station' or just 'station'. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to 'intercept station'. Manelolo (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*"to destroy the assembling Soviet spearhead with over 122,000 rounds of ordnance..." - as above: this seems unlikely. The Soviets were pretty good at artillery as well (they had entire artillery corps by this stage of the war).

As justified above. My own musings: Finns have always been very fond of artillery due to its superior effectiveness when used properly and with precision. Finland still has the largest artillery in the world per capita, I believe.

The material on the casualties is now duplicated. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 1st duplicate and left statement on Geospatial intelligence section. Manelolo (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the critical review! I happened to be lounging around, so I've addressed your points in the article as well as discussed above. Manelolo (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest changes look good, and I'm pleased to pass this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
I'm accepting the Finnish-language sources assuming good faith, and as they're obviously almost certain to be the most useful and accurate references on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: