Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2024/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failed

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Matarisvan (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Henry Biard

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist (talk)

Henry Biard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Henry Biard was an early British pilot - aviator's certificate number 218 - and flew in both world wars, but became a national hero for his victory in the 1924 Schneider Trophy seaplane race. He was a close colleague and friend of R. J. Mitchell at Supermarine, where he served as chief test pilot between 1919 and 1928. A colourful character of the old school -- fond of a tall tale (not least his own autobiography, which imposes some interesting challenges of sourcing), not shy of speaking his mind, and every ounce the dashing airborne daredevil. Perhaps ironically given present company, Biard never seemed to take much to military life: he fairly literally crashed out of the Royal Flying Corps just before the First World War, had a fairly uneventful time with the Royal Naval Air Service, and seems to have spent the Second World War doing communications flights. Having recently passed GA, this article may be bound for FAC at some point, and I'd be grateful for some MilHist expertise on the military and technical side of it: almost none of this subject-matter falls into my usual areas of expertise. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we know anything about his reasons for initially joining the military in 1913? Or anything about why he resigned the next year?
  • " On 2 December 1917, Biard was commissioned into the Royal Naval Air Service" - is it known if this was a volunteer decision or conscription?
    • I don't: do the dates suggest the latter? My thought would be that it's pretty late to volunteer, but then equally I can see how his work training civilian pilots (presumably, who often then enlisted) could have been seen (at least by him) as war work of a sort. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is believed to have undergone training at the RNAS's flight school in Vendôme, France." - is this a generally held belief, or that of a specific author?
  • "Passaleva suffered from vibration caused by his propellor, which was beginning to delaminate after being immersed in water the previous day: however, the competition rules forbade him from changing it" - I tend to think this would read smoother if split into two sentences at the colon
  • "but suggested that airflow over the wings may have interfered with the aircraft's elevators and tailplanes, causing aileron flutter." - link aileron
  • We have "The 1926 competition was for aircraft under 176 pounds (80 kg) that could fly with the greatest load-to-fuel ratio carried over courses that totalled 2,000 miles (3,200 km)" in a footnote, but then later, describing the aircraft entered into this challenge, we have the statement "The aircraft, 130 pounds (59 kg) heavier and 7 miles per hour (11 km/h) slower than the Sparrow I,". Did the Sparrow I really weigh 36 pounds or less? This seems unrealistic
  • Is it known when he married?
  • For FA status, you're going to need to be able to defend what makes The Channel Islands and the Great War pass the higher bar of high-quality reliable source
    • It's a tricky one: Bertram's a local historian and seems to be a good one, but he isn't a "proper" university-based academic. My sense is that the Ur-source for these pages is Biard's autobiography, Wings, which is out of print (and has its own problems!): in an ideal world, I'd like to get hold of a copy and cross-reference everything, and would probably be able to get rid of this website that way. I think everything cited there is relatively pedestrian and the sort of thing that we assume could be easily enough found out and verified by a local historian (e.g. the dates at which he was at school: we'd expect that to be in a school archive, even if we can't ourselves easily access it). Not an ideal situation, granted: there's an essay somewhere about how we sometimes have to fall back on the best available sources, and that feels like the situation we're in here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern here is not related to article quality so much but more placement of this in A-Class review. See note #3 at WP:MILHIST - Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability. and Biard's military service seems rather incidental to his primary notability as an aircraft tester for private industry. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I wouldn't have any disagreement with that -- I hadn't clocked it when going through the instructions. Appreciate your time so far: if it's felt that the article is ineligible for review here, I'm happy to withdraw it. On the off-chance, though: I wondered if you could give me a sanity check for the Second World War paragraph in the later life section? In particular, I've found that he was briefly moved to the General Duties branch of the RAF (shortly after the Battle of Britain), but am not sure if we can say anything useful from that about what he was doing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with 20th century UK military systems either - I'm mainly familiar with the mid-19th century United States. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zawed might be able to shed light on some of the RAF stuff. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chipping in here, it is my understanding (note that I don't profess to be a specialist on the RAF so may be wrong here) that General Duties were 'frontline' personnel - pilots, other flying personnel, ground crew, staff and admin people whereas the Administrative and Special Duties Branch were older personnel fulfilling an admin, e.g. payroll, or a research role. That doesn't quite fit in with him being a communications pilot for the first 12 or so months of the war though. I wonder if the source is confused, and the period in the GD branch was when he was in that pilot role. Zawed (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Hi Zawed -- thanks for chipping in with this. His service (see Discussion on the project page) has this kind of sequence:
          • Starting off in "admin duties"
          • Then moving to flying duties in the "Ferry Pilots Pool" (I assume that means flying people/things around the place?),
          • Then a few posts with the refuelling section (presumably what it says on the tin?),
          • Then some work as a "permanent duty pilot" at Northolt (could that be combat service?)
          • A short post at Bridgenorth for "No. 21 Fly: Control Course" (training or being trained?)
          • PDP at Penrhos (again seems to have been a training base: instructing?)
          • Two posts at different AGS (Air Gunners' School or Aircrew Grading School) -- presumably instructing in some capacity.
          • A couple more admin duties from late 1943, which would chime with an imminent departure for health reasons.
          Any thoughts on any of that? There's no indication from his later life that he was physically disabled (though equally there's no record of him flying professionally after the war): do you have any idea of what it would have taken for an officer to leave the RAF in 1944 for health reasons? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Typo: "propellor"
  • Convert horsepower to Watts?
  • "the story was reported in the The Scotsman." Do wee need two "the"s?
  • I fixed two CS1 warnings
  • Any details about his marriages? (I found his divorce)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent on the marriages -- one of his service records has the date of his marriage, but no name. We can probably do something like "Biard married on 1 July 1914. In 1936, he divorced his wife, Simone...", which doesn't definitively say that they were the same person. I'd imagine the date of marriage is on the document: I'm not in a position to get to Kew in the near future, unfortunately, but I'll try to get a look at it if I'm ever there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is always frustrating. If he were an Australian, his service record would be online, as would the newspapers and the registry of births, deaths and marriages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the service record, usefully, but the "wife's name" field is blank -- despite there being a date entered for his marriage! One thought that hadn't yet occurred to me: I might see if there are any local newspapers around that date: it wouldn't be unusual to post an announcement in there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Why do you believe "File:Supermarine Sea Lion II L'Aerophile October,1922.jpg" to be PD?
    • The source page gives the "rights" as PD. Coming at it from another direction, it's published in a magazine but not claimed by the author, so the copyright for that publication presumably belonged to the publication itself (so PMA starts at the date of publication): for a 1922 publication, it's therefore out of copyright in both France and the US.
  • "Schneider Trophy 1922 Course Map.svg": it would be helpful to have full details of the source, perhaps in the same format as used in Works cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, some comments:

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator note

[edit]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, unfortunately this assessment will have to be archived since it has been open for 9 months and has only one support. I do think you will be able to get this article through FAC easily, and I will surely add my review and support if you nominate it there. Matarisvan (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sihanouk Trail

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Sihanouk Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article, originally promoted in 2006, for A-class reassessment. As User:buidhe pointed out on the talk page two years ago, there are outstanding verification issues. Nine citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Mztourist is still on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am and can take a look at it, though logistics isn't really my thing. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Schierbecker, I might be able to rework this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? Matarisvan (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you for offering to improve this article. Just checking. Are you sure you know what you are getting into? A class is no joke. It can be very time-consuming to bring one article up to A-class, much more two. You know the source material or are willing to learn it? I ask because your account isn't very old. Schierbecker (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can. I have been working on the GA reassessment of the Galatian War article, you could check that one out to see if I might be able to rework this one or not. Matarisvan (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This has been open since March and there have been no edits to the article since May. As the problems with the article remain outstanding and no work is underway to fix them, it should be delisted. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Nick-D, I have been busy with some other GA and FA rewrites and thus sadly couldn't make the time to work on this article. I hope to start in 2-3 days and my most optimistic estimate is that I can get the article back to A class level within 10-15 days after starting work. I hope that is not too much time, this reassessment being open since March and no edits since May bother me too. Matarisvan (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Schierbecker, my apologies but I can't find the time to work on this article's rewrite because I currently have to do rewrites for 2 FAs and 2 GAs. I thus have to vote for a delist for this article. Matarisvan (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Nick-D (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

INS Shakti (A57)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk)

INS Shakti (A57) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want to take it to FAC. This is my first WPMH A Class Review, so I'm looking forward to the experience! Matarisvan (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose, could you please close this review? It has not received any comments yet, and in most likelihood, will not get them anytime soon. Thanks. Matarisvan (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Igor Mangushev

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): CT55555 (talk)

Igor Mangushev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Igor Mangushev was a Russian mercenary who famously held up a skull during a stage routine in 2022. He died in circumstances described by his wife as an assassination later that year. He is a notable figure associated with the war in Ukraine. This is my first time nominating an article for A-class review, although I have several GA articles and one FA article elsewhere on Wikipedia. I will respond quickly to comments.

User:Red-tailed_hawk did a significant amount of the writing of this article with me.

CT55555(talk) 14:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, this really needs a source review up front, because I know that a lot of Russian media is considered unreliable. I suggest posting on the Milhist talk page asking for someone who can do a source review for a recent Russian bio. I wouldn't commit to a full review until I was assured the sources were all ok. I'd add that there is almost nothing about his early life, which makes me unsure it should be GA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source review - pass

[edit]

Not my area of expertise, but since no one else has stepped forward, I will have ago.

In sum, the sources used in the are generally considered acceptable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

[edit]

Given the source review above, I'll take a look over the prose.

  • "In 2009, he founded the nationalist organization Svetlaya Rus in 2009.." – Remove repetition of "in 2009".
  • "In addition to his military activities, he worked as a political operative for various Kremlin agencies and an internet troll for the Internet Research Agency." The MOS advises against single-sentence paragraphs. I think this could merge easily with the previous paragraph.
  • "Igor Mangushev was born on 16 August 1986 in Moscow, Russian SFSR." – And again.
  • "His group was among the first such public-private partnerships in Russia to conduct these sorts of operations following the 2011 arrest of Russian pilots in Tajikistan." – What does the "2011 arrest of Russian pilots in Tajikistan" have to do with "public-private partnerships" to carry out raids on immigrant dwellings?
  • Link Svetlaya Rus and E.N.O.T. Corp. on their first mention in the body of the article, as well as the lead.
  • I frequently find myself wondering what things are, and what relevance they have: the article assumes too much knowledge. It says he founded Svetlaya Rus, but never really discusses what it is. The same with E.N.O.T. Corp; although the article notes that it "was founded to coordinate Russia's nascent militarised patriotic movement", the article would benefit from greater explanation. And then again with the Internet Research Agency.
  • "..opposition to 2013 Alexei Navalny mayoral campaign.." – Missing word.
  • "Mangushev worked as captain.." – Missing word.
  • "capitol city" – Should be "capital city".
  • "According to his widow, he dreamed of seeing Kyiv burning." – This only appears in the lead.

Overall, I am leaning towards an oppose on this. The article just feels like a collection of facts about the subject, rather than a coherent biography of the subject. I'm not so much bothered about the gaps where we don't know what he was doing, but more about the lack of context given throughout. The article would do well to frame Mangushev's role and importance. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catlemur

[edit]
  • His father's name (Leonidovich) is mentioned in the lede but not in the main article, its not cited.
  • There is next to no information on his childhood and who his parents were.
  • There are articles about him in Meduza, Novaya Gazeta and other Russian independent opposition media which are not cited. The aforementioned sources contain information on his early activities and death which are currently missing from the article. So it can definitely be expanded further.
  • He is also mentioned in academic articles 1, 2 which explain that ENOT's leadership criticized the handling of Donbas conflict by the Russian authorities leading to a fallout between the two. This is an important detail missing from the article as is Mangushev's alleged role in bringing Igor Girkin to Donbas.--Catlemur (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden

[edit]

One image, fair use. It seems a reasonable case of fair use, so... ✓ Pass Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

No consensus to promote after six months and no WP activity by nominator since September so archiving this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): JumbledPasta (talk)

Continuation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After receiving and addressing the previous peer review for this article, I've decided to list the Continuation War for an A-Class review. The article is already GA status and currently has a B-Class MilHist rating. Eventually, I hope to get the article to FA since the preceding WWII-era war, the Winter War, is already a FA; it'd be great to have both Finnish wars be FAs. Thanks in advance to all who comment, and I will respond quickly. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cplakidas

[edit]

Not my area of expertise apart from a basic knowledge of the events, but the article looks interesting and is an excellent opportunity to learn more. Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, but here it goes:[reply]

Lede
  • fifteen months after the end of the Winter War as people may not be aware of it, perhaps introduce the Winter War at the start of the paragraph? E.g. 'The Soviet Union and Finland had fought the so-called Winter War from November 1939 to March 1940, which had ended with a Finnish defeat and the cession of significant parts of territory to the USSR, including most of Finnish Karelia'? The lede should have sufficient context and cover the main body of the article (there is a section on the Winter War there), and I expect most readers won't be aware of the background.
  • Soviet lend-lease equipment perhaps 'lend-lease equipment sent by the US to the Soviet Union' for clarity and context.
Background
  • turned its attention to the Baltic states I suggest listing them, as many readers may not be familiar with them.
  • Likewise, Finnish leadership wanted to preserve there's a 'the' missing, and who exactly was that leadership? The government? The president? Mannerheim?
  • Fixed the missing 'the' and I believe based on the context of the paragraph that the original editor used the word 'leadership' to refer all of the positions you mentioned above; there may be a better word to indicate this. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'the' is still missing (and I found another case at Finnish leadership justified its alliance with Germany as self-defence..
  • Western-orientated policy I think 'Western-oriented'? Never come across 'orientated' before.
  • Soviet annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia has already been linked, and I would suggest using consistent terminology (either spell out the three countries or call them 'the Baltic states')
  • Russian-language sources, such as the book Stalin's Missed Chance,...Postwar Russian-language sources... Is there distinction between the former and the latter? Obviously all Russian sources referring to these events would be post-war? Is there a distinction between Soviet and post-Soviet ones?
  • Strangely, all the sources mentioned are post-Soviet analyses of the conflict, so I don't know why they're referred to as being different. Changed to refer to all of them as post-Soviet; not sure if there are any Soviet sources available, will look out for any. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chancellor Adolf Hitler the title was inaccurate by that time, and inadvertently masks Hitler's real position as dictator.
  • Since the date of his mentioning is mid-1940, it is fair to replace with the term dictator as by this time he had already seized absolute power and named himself der Führer und Reichskanzler. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears another user has reverted it back to chancellor, which doesn’t seem fitting since it’s in the 1940s. Will probably make discussion about it and other similar instances of word choice. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finnish appeals to purchase arms 'Finnish requests to purchase arms'
  • During the presidential election 'During the Finnish presidential election'
  • Finnish Major General Paavo Talvela met with German Generaloberst Franz Halder... if Finnish ranks are translated, the German ones should too, especially since a non-German speaker or non-military expert doesn't know what a Generaloberst is.
  • in-carefully couched 'in carefully-couched'?
  • more tolerant and permissive not sure what this means, these are adjectives to describe a master, not an ambassador. Perhaps 'conciliatory' or 'less confrontational'?
  • which had taken place after Finnish intentions of relying on the League of Nations and Nordic neutrality to avoid conflicts had failed because of lack of outside support has already been mentioned, and is unclear how it relates to Finland's decision in 1941.
  • I changed this statement to be a little more concise; I think the writer of this may of been trying to convey Finnish frustration that the LoN didn't succeed in avoiding the Winter War. I don't know if such a connection exists or if it was just a duplicate description the conditions of the Winter War. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...supported a Greater Finland ideology. a very brief explanation of the latter wold be in order here, to help understand why the war with the USSR was related to achieving it.
  • Historian William R. Trotter stated that was back in 1991, is this still the current state of research?
  • I'm not completely certain about more modern research. However in the next paragraph, Kirby's 2006 book (pp. 221) corroborates Trotter's point about how the Finnish leaders being kept in the dark regarding Operation Barbarossa to the German information as the following: "Finnish officers ... were drip-fed information about the invasion of the USSR", "talks ... resembled nothing so much as a polite game of poker, which neither side seemed willing to bring to a conclusion". So I think it's fair to say that Trotter's point still stands. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They agreed upon the arrival of German troops, German troops are mentioned as already being in Finland.
  • inner circle of political and military leaders might be useful to identify them, especially if they crop up later in the narrative
  • The paragraph previously includes this: "The inner circle of Finnish leadership, led by Ryti and Mannerheim...". I'm not sure that anymore detail of other leaders is necessary since only these two are the only officials of this 'inner circle' frequently mentioned throughout the article. JumbledPasta (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it did sign the Anti-Comintern Pact, a less formal alliance please give a date, as it currently suggests it was done before the war even started
Order of battle and operational planning
  • against the Soviet Air Forces had not affected air units located near Finland, it could deploy around 700 aircraft the 'it' here is a tad unclear
  • outnumbered the Kriegsmarine introduce it briefly; since otherwise English terms are used, gloss or explain Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH) and Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (OKL), smth like 'German army High Command (OKH)' would be enough.
  • supporting the advance of the German Army Group North perhaps add 'through the Baltic states towards Leningrad'?
Finnish offensive phase in 1941
  • the Finnish government used the attacks as justification there is a MOS:EASTEREGG here
  • There's a photo of Ryti with the caption President Risto Ryti giving his famous radio speech about the Continuation War on 26 June 1941 should this 'famous' speech not be mentioned in the main text?
  • (motti in Finnish) why is this relevant?
  • due to unacclimatised German troops, heavy Soviet resistance, I suggest reversing the order here; whatever the actual and certainly real problems were, the lack of acclimatisation is most often an excuse for failing. One should give credit to the Soviet resistance where it is due.
  • "short border, long peace" here the Finnish term might be relevant to have.
  • Mannerheim drafted his order of the day, the Sword Scabbard Declaration, in which he pledged to liberate Karelia; in December 1941 in private letters, he made known his doubts of the need to push beyond the previous borders this apparent contradiction should be explained. Was it a result of the prospect of the failure of Barbarossa in achieving a rapid Soviet defeat, or other reasons?
  • See also: Arctic convoys of World War II is this not more relevant in the discussion of the offensive towards Murmansk and its railway?
Trench warfare from 1942 to 1944
  • Operation Nordwind (1941) disambiguation is not necessary here
  • I know why we have the disambiguation in there, but in the context of this article it is pointless (the few people who will know that there was another similarly named operation in another front won't complain). But your solution works fine as well :). Constantine ✍ 07:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • of whom 300 were refugees from where? Karelia, or Nazi-occupied Europe?
  • German command mentioned Finnish Jews 'German command' is vague here; just that the Finnish Jews were mentioned is enough, rather, the significance of the Wannsee Conference should be briefly explained.
Soviet offensive in 1944
  • Because of Soviet pressure, Finland was also forced to refuse any economic aid from the Marshall Plan. lacks reference
General
  • Non-English terms should be marked by relevant templates, e.g. {{lang|de|Oberkommando des Heeres}} or {{transl|ru|Stavka}}.
  • There's a lot of images on both sides of the text, leading to a lot of MOS:SANDWICHING in smaller monitors
  • Should not Finlandization be mentioned as a consequence of the war?
  • Is there any further info on the Finnish home front?

That's it for a first pass. A really interesting and quite comprehensive article. Constantine ✍ 13:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see this article developed to a good standard. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The infobox says: "Soviet victory[5][6][7]" - I don't think that this needs any specific references, much less three, given it's not controversial
  • I feel by simply stating the Moscow Armistice ended the war allows for a more nuanced and neutral approach to the outcome of the war instead of just outright stating victory/loss for either side especially since the Soviets did not annex Finland. There is even an argument for a Finnish victory, considering they remained independent with their own form of government in place and were forced to cede only about 11% of their territory. I used the format of infobox for the Winter War article and its respective talk discussions as a basis to construct the box here. There are also elements of Finnish achievement in the conflict such as they resisted the Soviet lines for years and their military losses were much lower compared to that of the Soviets, and their role in the Siege of Leningrad. I think these factors are all neutrally approached in the current version of the infobox since it was not an overwhelming one-sided victory. JumbledPasta (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm rather concerned that we've gone from an over-refenced statement that the war was a Soviet victory to an unreferenced statement that's rather unclear. The claim above that the war might have been a Finnish victory seems hard to justify - what reliable sources state this? Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a passage in Kirby 2006's A concise history of Finland on pp. 231-232 that talks of the harshness of the Soviet terms. It also talks of how the terms could have been much worse if the Finns had previously surrendered and sued for peace in June. However, from reading over the actual document of the Moscow Armistice it does definitely seem as if the Soviets won the war. I'll change the result section of the infobox to 'Soviet victory and Moscow Armistice' of course without any unnecessary citations. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note on the UK in the infobox says that the declaration of war was largely for appearances sake, and notes some limited military support for the USSR. This seems a bit of an over-simplification, as the British would presumably have brought in an economic embargo against Finland and equipment provided by the UK to the USSR would have been used in the war.
  • The chronology in the second and third paras of the lead is a bit confusing: the 2nd rightly notes that Finland took part in planning for German-led invasion of the USSR, but the third wrongly implies that the USSR was the aggressor
  • The new lead omits the German and Finnish led planning stages so I think that this clears up the issue. Also the Soviet Union did 'technically' conduct the first offensive action with its air raids in Finland on the 22 and 25 June 1941 and claimed that they were only targeting German stations. The Finns then used it as rationale to invade which is stated in the new lead. JumbledPasta (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a bit over-long: the usual rule of thumb is to keep leads to 3 paragraphs
  • "Moscow turned its attention" - don't refer to governments by their capital city
  • The second para of the 'Winter war' section doesn't cover the effectiveness of the Finnish military during the war, which was presumably a factor in the Finnish decision to re-open the conflict
  • "To combat this, the Finnish government demobilised part of the army to prevent industrial and agricultural production from collapsing" - when did this process occur?
  • "Nevertheless, the United States never declared war on Finland during the entire conflict" - my understanding is that this was partly strategic, to preserve a way for the western Allies to communicate with and put diplomatic pressure on Finland.
  • The 'British declaration of war and action in the Arctic Ocean' also doesn't note whether the British subjected Finland to an economic blockade.
  • The second para of the 'Unconventional warfare and military operations' section should note that the Finnish front was a low priority for the Soviets and Germans
  • "Finland was required to..." - required by whom? The Soviet peace terms, I presume?
  • "Evidence of the Soviet leadership's intentions for the occupation of Finland has later been uncovered. " - this para is a bit confusing. The previous para notes that historians continue to debate the Soviet war aims, but this para implies that the USSR intended to occupy all of Finland on the basis of currency which was printed. How does this fit into the debate by historians? A lot of nonsense has been written about 'invasion currency' in various areas of the war, so I'm a bit doubtful about this material (e.g. currency printed by Japan for use in occupied areas of Australian New Guinea was for years misinterpreted as being intended for use in the invasion of the Australian mainland, something the Japanese actually ruled out doing)
  • "Because of Soviet pressure, Finland was also forced to refuse any economic aid from the Marshall Plan." - needs a reference
  • "Of the Soviet prisoners, at least 18,318 were documented to have died in Finnish prisoner of war camps" - this is about one in four Soviet POWs. This issue should be discussed, as it's a shockingly high figure.
  • There are too many links in the 'See also' section, with some having already been linked and discussed in the article
  • Notes 7, 8, 9 and 11 are confusing: why are all these references in notes, and are so many references really needed?
  • "According to a news piece on 8 December 1941 by The Examiner, an Australian newspaper, Britain notified the Finnish Government on 6 December "that she considered herself at war with [Finland] as from 1 a.m. (G.M.T.) to-morrow" - I'm not sure why a provincial Tasmanian newspaper is being used as a reference here. The British official history is available online via Archives.org, and will have the exact date (see History of the Second World War for the relevant links to volumes - I suspect that you want the 'British Foreign Policy in the Second World War' series)
  • There's a bit of over-linking in the article, with some articles being linked several times.
  • The references are a bit confusing, with some books receiving full citations in the 'Citations' section while others use the sfn format; I'd suggest standardising on the later.
  • Some of the works in the 'Further reading' section are missing the full publication details.
  • Are you confident that all the photos in the 'Военный альбом' link are under correct copyright conditions? Russian copyright law is a bit complex.
  • According to a translation of this page, "Due to the different legal status of different photographs, it is impossible to indicate uniform conditions for the use of any photograph on the Site" . . . "Restrictions on the use of a specific photograph known to the author of the Site are indicated on the page of the corresponding photograph". There are nearly 54 pages of images on the site, so I'm not sure if every single one is copyright free. However, I don't think any images from this source are used in the article. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JumbledPasta: I'll be travelling overseas from mid this week, and may take a few days to respond to your comments here. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JumbledPasta and Nick-D: Where are we at with this? Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like not all of my comments are addressed so far. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a review once the others are satisfied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • The Commonwealth nations of Canada, Australia, India and New Zealand soon followed suit. But India did not become part of the Commonwealth until 1947? And why is New Zealand linked?
    For your info: The Soviet Union asked the UK for a declaration of war on Finland, Hungary and Romania in October 1941. After consideration in both the War Cabinet and

Advisory War Council, the Australian Government told the United Kingdom that the hesitations which the British felt seemed unconvincing and could not be justified publicly, and that a refusal to accede to the request would have bad effects on Russian morale. The United Kingdom decided to declare war on the three states and Australia approved. Australia declared war on 8 December. Some Finnish people were interned in Australia as enemy aliens. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

[edit]

Time for the fussy stuff:

  • Standardize ISBN formats; some have all appropriate hyphens, others just one and still others none at all.
  • Erickson is a reprint; please add the original year of publication
  • Most of your titles are in title case; be consistent, even with translated titles
  • Most all book sources are in the bibliography. Why aren't all of them there?
  • n-dash rather than hyphen needed for cites 84 and 102
  • A lot of cites are missing page numnbers
  • Be consistent about using place of publication or not for books
  • All books or journals need an ISBN, OCLC # or ISSN
  • These will keep you busy for a bit. I'll check back once you're done with these and will do spot-checks, etc. then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2024/Failed&oldid=1250655751"