Talk:Lapland War/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 03:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

An interesting article on an oft-forgotten event. I've made some copy edits, and these are my comments:

• The Finns escalated the situation into warfare on 28 September after Soviet pressure due to poor obedience to the peace terms. "Poor obedience" is an odd expression, this could be revised. Revised to "The Finns escalated the situation to warfare on 28 September after Soviet pressure to adhere to the peace terms", maybe better now?

I'd specify their peace terms.

Switched it to "Soviet pressure to adhere to the terms of the Armistice" and the Armistice terms are mentioned in the first para.

• Wikilinking Petsamo on first mention to Pechengsky District would be helpful. It actually is in the Prelude section here: "The Germans planned to withdraw their forces northward in order to shield the nickel mines near Petsamo (Russian: Pechenga)." But I added the language tag for more clarity now.
• There is some inconsistency with British and American English spellings (e.g. "labour" and "organize") Switched all spotted -ize to -ise.
• The devastating Soviet strategic Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive in southern Finland from June to July and a change of Finnish leadership in August 1944, Finland negotiated a separate peace agreement with the USSR. The grammar here is improper (missing a conjunction?) and there is a typo. Results of heavy editing and build-up. Added 'after' and amended 'change of' to 'change in' (guessing that was the typo?)
• Material should be Wikilinked on first mention in the body but not later. True, switched link to first mention.
• Arrival of naval assets allowed the Finns to safely disembark heavy equipment to support the balett and around 12,500 soldiers in total arrived during the landingsle. Some very odd wikilinking happening here (and a typo or two). Zero idea how that link and the massive three-letter typos happened. Fixed now.
• The Liberation of Finnmark had some profound effects on the local economy and society. Is there any further information on the effects of the Germans' destruction in Finland and/or the postwar rebuilding efforts? There is but unfortunately I didn't focus enough on it during research. I added some reconstruction dates and demining numbers I still had notes on. But the reconstruction effort and effect on local society has been studied extensively (e.g. effects on Finnish women who had married and had children with German soldiers). I would have to take another "offensive" at it to gather the data into a proper section, but I hope it's good enough for a summarizing GA-level now?

Yes, for GA purposes of "broad" info, that will do.

• For the purposes of historiography, is the Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive not considered part of the Lapland War? Hmmmh this might be a tougher nut to crack. I'm certain its not in Finnish historiography (and then again Lapland War is a Finnish construct). Most likely German and Russian historiography would consider them interlinked. I'll do some further research if an extra line or two are needed in the article (e.g. "the offensive is not considered part of Lapland War in Finland, but in Germany and Russia it is yada yada yada).

  After further research, the results are inconclusive. The offensive is often mentioned in all historiography in strategic overviews etc. but no idea if its de facto and/or legal status within the Lapland War has ever been studied comprehensively/on a meta-level. But I have included more data on it per NPOV (e.g. in lede and the paragraph starting with "The Soviet Karelian Front, led by General Kirill Meretskov, initiated its Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive ...") since Soviet troops crossed quite a bit into Finnish territory and it had a de facto effect on the Lapland War nevertheless.

Yes, a few sources I'm finding seem to consider it to be a part of course of the Lapland War [1][2][3] but there is the matter that the Finns had technically ceded the territory to Russia. I think it might be worth mentioning the offensive in a footnote in the infobox as at least a contemporaneous effort.

Added pro et contra pondering to the infobox footnote for USSR per the sources you provided and a couple of my own (all of them seem pretty NPOV). I think it should be ok now! PS. Gosh, never realized how excellent Google Books is at finding exact mentions.

• Some info on the posturing of Soviet forces in Finland and their actions after the war (like when they finally left the country) would be helpful. True, added to the aforementioned paragraph dealing with the Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive.

Good additions. Also, this source has some info concerning the naval actions, include Finnish losses of a minelayer and ten of its crew to a U boat. [4]

Added Grooss as a ref to a few spots and mentioned the sinking in the very last para of the Phases of war section.

• Some info is cited with the harvard footnote and is very specific with the page numbers, other info is cited to a publication that gives a range of page numbers but not the specific page relevant to each piece of information. If those instances could be changed to harv footnotes with precise pages it would be best. I transformed everything into Harvard style and tried to pinpoint those pages more accurately I still had notes on. But it should be ok per WP:VERIFY?

That'll do for GA. Military A-class or FAC will want more specific page ranges, particularly for Elfvengren 2005 and Kurenmaa & Lentilä 1980.

Sure thing, if anyone ever comes around to that. From shabby C to GA is good enough for me right now. :-)

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thx for most likely the fastest GAN response ever! I'll start addressing your minor points and researching the deeper ones. Manelolo (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Everything should be addressed now! Manelolo (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Manelolo: Haha, I saw the topic in the Military History noticeboard I wanted to take it before someone else did. I didn't even realize how recent the nom was until after I started it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Thx again for a friendly and educative review! Manelolo (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment

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: