Talk:Winter War/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

I read half this article together with a non-Wikipedian who's a World War II buff and is pretty familiar with this topic. So these are my comments plus his.

I think the article is well-written, interesting, and very in-depth. My reviewing buddy could not find anything lacking in terms of missing info in the half that we read. My main concern is that the beginning of the article reads as though it's sympathetic with Finland. A lot of the sentences point out Russia's breaking treaties, discuss the Russian propaganda, etc. I can't help but think as I'm reading this "surely the Finns were no angels either!" I wonder if it would help to present the Russian point of view more. From what my reviewing buddy says, the Russians felt they had no choice but to attack, in order to fortify their position of Leningrad against German attack. Not that you don't cover this, it just seems like the article's often more sympathetic with the Finns. Could also take out sentences that seem to cast Finland in an overly positive light. More details to follow. More suggestions:

Most of these are, hopefully, answered in the article section Aftermath_of_the_Winter_War#The_Soviet_literature_1939.E2.80.931989 which I just wrote. Though the source book is in Finnish, the author of the section is the Russian historian Juri Kilin (Юрий Килин) who is the professor of the Petrozavodsk State University. The goal of the Soviet Union was to occupy/annex Finland as whole by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and motives to justify the war had to think up later. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• 4th para of the lead: My reviewing buddy says that the peace treaty itself didn't thwart the British plan, other events had prevented it anyway. Among them the treaty between Germany and Russia. Maybe say 'hindered' or something less absolute.

Actually the (Franco-)British plan materialized couple of months after the Winter War (it was total failure for the British). See: Battles of Narvik. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Background of Finnish politics before the War

• Funny little dangling sentence: In 1918, the Finns fought a short civil war. - nothing about the context of this? No outcome?

I think a short mention should be enough. The article Background of the Winter War covers enough. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence isn't really clear: the country had almost solved its "right-wing problem"... How had it solved it? What was the right-wing problem?
• What do the Olympics have to do with the rest of this para? as it prepared for the 1940 Summer Olympics, to be held in Helsinki.[28] Why did the Olympics effect the country's politics?

Most of these are explained in the article Background of the Winter War. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking because I personally want to know, but because it's unclear in the article, it kind of leaves the reader going, 'huh?' I think just a few words about what the deal was with the Olympics would help. On the other hand, if you think it's not important enough to go into more detail over, you could take the whole sentence out, which might leave the para more cohesive anyway. delldot ∇. 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I made some edits. Hopefully, sentences are more clear now. Peltimikko (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a clear sentence, but it still doesn't explain what the Olympics have to do with anything. If they caused or were affected by any political events in the country, that should be made explicit. Or, if it's not important enough to be included, it should be left out entirely. delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Olympics removed. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet–Finnish relations and politics before the War

• If something's debatable or not certain, it shouldn't be stated as though it's Truth. Any potentially controversial statement should be attributed to whoever holds that statement. WP articles can't make any subjective statements, like "most remarkable". We must always attribute these. e.g. During the 1920s, Joseph Stalin was disappointed with the Soviet Union's inability to foment a successful revolution in Finland. this presented as absolute, is it? If it's not widely agreed-upon fact, it should be "according to [whoever]," because this is more opinion than fact. We can't be making blanket assertions about potentially debatable subjects like that.

 Done Peltimikko (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Petsamo, with its ice-free harbour on the Arctic Ocean. How many months of the year is Petsamo ice free?

Petsamo, as Murmansk, is ice free thanks to the Gulf Stream. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my buddy had his doubts about this but I'll take your word for it. delldot ∇. 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)  Done delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hate figures doesn't seem to be the right word for this sentence: The Finnish Marshal C.G.E. Mannerheim and the leader of the Finnish Social Democrat Party Väinö Tanner were particularly hated figures.[31] how about "with particular scorn [in propaganda] for The Finnish Marshal C.G.E. Mannerheim and the leader of the Finnish Social Democrat Party Väinö Tanner"?

Yes, this will also do. I would be a little bit careful with brackets. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Too-long sentence: With Stalin raised to near-absolute power by the Great Purge of 1938, Stalin's Soviet Union changed its foreign policy toward Finland in the late 1930s, now pursuing the aim of recovering the provinces of Tsarist Russia lost during the chaos of the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War.
  •  Done delldot ∇. 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Too long and confusing, hard to follow: The Soviet leadership believed that the old Empire was imbued with an optimal balance of security and territory, dating back to the Treaty of Nystad of 1721, which was intended to protect Tsarist Saint Petersburg from the Swedes.

WP:BOLD (this is a friendly suggestion as English is not my native.) Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-Finnish prewar negotiations

• Introduce acronyms either by explaining them or using the whole word: In April 1938, an NKVD-agent, Boris Yartsev

• Is this absolute fact, or just a later interpretation? Necessary assault troop deployments were not initiated until October 1939, though operation plans made in September called for the invasion to start in November If it's not certain, maybe the wording should not be stated like this is abolte truth. I notice the ref is not in English. Could we get an English one? If nothing is written about it in English, is it important enough to be included in this summary?

Uh, sorry to butt in here, but that's not right; even if something isn't mentioned in an english source, that doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be included or non-notable. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right, it certainly doesn't automatically mean that. I didn't mean to give the impression that everything has to be in English. The reason I was asking if it's important if it hasn't been written about in English is that in this case, we're talking about a war, on which lots and lots of material has been written, in English as well as lots of other languages. If none of the English material mentions this, wouldn't that mean it's relatively minor? Especially in a summary section of an article that itself has to do a lot of summarizing. Re-reading the sentence I was picking on now, I don't see why it seemed like interpretation rather than fact, but my reviewing buddy thought it was. I was hoping for English sources particularly for potentially dubious or contentious statements, so readers could look them up. But yeah, I won't hold up the GA on this alone. delldot ∇. 01:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done (Just marking to clarify that this isn't a problem with the article) delldot ∇. 03:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Shelling of Mainila

• This sounds like the Russians were giving the Finns a range: demanding that the Finns apologize for the incident and move their forces 20–25 kilometres away from the border. if it was a specific line, it should say something like demanding that the Finns apologize for the incident and move their forces past a line that was 20–25 kilometres away from the border.

 Done Peltimikko (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• This seems like another strong satement, is this totally unequivocal? Later research of Soviet archives has determined that the shelling was, in all likelihood, staged by the Soviet side in order to gain a pretext for withdrawing from the non-aggression pact.[43] If this is at all doubtful, it shouldn't be presented as fact, but rather as this author's (or group of authors') opinion.

I think the Shelling of Mainila is not nowadays disputed, as Russian histography admits it. This is not bulletproof information, but seems contemporary Russian and Finnish histography are mostly separeted with status of the Mannerheim Line and the protection of Leningrad. And it seems the contemporary Russia histography is closing the Finnish point view - but these are very uncertain suggestions. See more: Shelling of Mainila Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find a source to support a statement such as "most historians agree" or "it is now widely understood that" or something, in that case, but I admit this is a tall order. If the source you're currently citing here is a primary one, you should at least find a secondary one, e.g. a book or research paper. delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I found a new source and edited the section. Peltimikko (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done It's very much softened from what I had said was a strong statement. I didn't mean to bully you into changing the meaning, but this version is fine by me if you're fine with it. But if it's true that it's widely agreed that the shelling was staged, that's fine too if you have a source. Hate to use the "some historians" because it's vague and weaseley, but it's so hard to avoid. delldot ∇. 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• It would be better if we can get English references. Especially for potentially controversial statements. Secondary sources are better than primary ones.

I will try to add couple of more English references. It is quite challenging as the latest studies and theories are in Finnish. There must more Russian point of view except professors Kilin, but he has done great job in contemporary studies. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'd say that the most important cases for refs to be in English are where the statements are potentially controversial or dubious statements, so readers can check. delldot ∇. 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, again, sorry. Something doesn't need to necessarily need to be covered in an english source to be covered, or many of our best Featured Articles wouldn't be where they are! Please bear that in mind. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done (Just marking to clarify that this isn't a problem with the article) delldot ∇. 03:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First Soviet offensive

• I'm worried about the potential bias of this sentence: Legally, the Soviet attack without a declaration of war violated three different non-aggression pacts: the Treaty of Tartu signed in 1920, the non-aggression pact between Finland and the Soviet Union signed in 1932 and again in 1934, and also the Charter of the League of Nations, which the Soviet Union signed in 1934.[44] What about Finland, they were totally innocent? How relevant were the treaties anyway? Given that this is a long article, and a long section that should be a summary, maybe we can cut some of this stuff that seems to cast Russia in a poor light.

Added "J.K. Paasikivi". Breaking non-aggression by casus belli is everyday business in realpolitik. See also: Gleiwitz incident. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think this sentence is too detailed, I would recommend taking it out: The government was also called "The Terijoki Government", since the village of Terijoki was the first place "liberated" by the Red Army. Not only is it kind of overly detailed for a summary section in a long article, the use of scare quotes is problematic.

 Done Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet order of battle

• Ambiguous: Stalin had superseded his commanders with political commissars or officers. does 'or officers' mean this is an alternate meaning for commissars, or is it another option? If the former, how about Stalin had superseded his commanders with political commissars (officers).
  •  Done delldot ∇. 03:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• 'Or' is ambiguous here too. Further complicating the Soviet advance was the fact that battlefield decisions had to be seconded by a "politruk," or political commissar. Maybe you should do a search through the whole article for ', or' and clarify the meaning of each.

Ok. Officers removed, politruk removed. Hopefully, both are in order now. Peltimikko (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done yep, looks fine. delldot ∇. 03:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First battles on the Karelian Isthmus

• In this sentence, Eighty Soviet tanks were destroyed in the border-zone fighting, are we to understand that the molotov cocktails did significant damage to the tanks? I wouldn't think they would hurt a tank one bit.

First Soviet tanks were quite weak comparing later ones. See also: T-26 Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. delldot ∇. 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)  Done delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Defense of the Mannerheim Line

• I'm concerned about the article as reading too sympathetic to the Finns. For example, According to the Finns, the real strength of the line was "stubborn defenders with a lot of sisu" – a Finnish idiom roughly translated as "guts".[70] This and other sentences, e.g. the para starting with For many of the encircled Soviet troops in a pocket, (motti in Finnish), just staying alive was an ordeal comparable to combat in the previous section, seem to give the impression of these vibrant, intrepid Finns verses these plodding, brutish, bureaucratic Russians. I don't know how much of that is simply an accurate representation of the situation! Or how much I'm reading into it.

"According to the Finns" sentence, and see also: Mannerheim Line where the structure of the defence line is explained. "For many of the encircled..." is from Trotter, almost word by word. And living in "motti" must be very difficult as for example in the Battle of Raate road, the Ukrainian 44th Division men had only summer cloths during in the -20 C. Lot of men died without firing a single shot. Warm clothes were distributed later, as the Stavka noticed that the war will take more time than first calculated. Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this particular example is fine, I was just worried about an overall balance in the article of emphasis on facts that make the Finns look good and the Soviets look bad. My buddy had another quick look and says it looks a lot better. Now, when you say "almost word by word", are you saying that a portion of this content was copied or is close to copied from another source? If so this would be a copyright violation and would need to be removed or rewritten in your own words right away. delldot ∇. 03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Motti only needs to be defined once.

Done. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Battles in Ladoga Karelia

• This wording is too vague to be useful: They were expecting reinforcements and supplies to arrive by air, but these sometimes failed. Do a search for some--this wording is often so vague it's pretty much meaningless.

 Done Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Suomussalmi–Raate double operation

• The battle of Raate road, which occurred during the month-long battle of Suomussalmi, resulted in one of the most remarkable losses in military history. Says who? Our article can't claim this, it must be attributed to someone or some group. You could say something like what is widely acclaimed as one of the most remarkable losses in military history if that's true.

The sentence changed to "...remarkable losses in the Winter War". Peltimikko (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is still opinion, that it was remarkable. You should find someone to attribute this opinion to (e.g. "...that historians often call the most remarkable[23]..."), or put it into objective terms (e.g. "losses totaling this many hundreds of thousands of people"). delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How about one of the largest losses in the Winter War? delldot ∇. 03:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

By your suggestion. Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Finnish Lapland

• Petsamo is a DAB link. I noticed a few others in the article, it may be worth checking all the article's links.

 Done Peltimikko (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So we're about halfway through. I'll stop here to give you a chance to start on these, and we'll do another installment next time we're both available. It's certainly an erudite coverage of the topic and a pleasure to read! delldot ∇. 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have marked with a  Done everything that I think has been addressed, and left replies on some that I think have not been dealt with yet. Others that I don't think have yet been addressed I've left because it looks like you haven't gotten to them yet (which is fine, I know it's a lot, so take your time). I'll add the next installment when I have it ready whether or not you've addressed all of the ones above. delldot ∇. 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Next installment

Not everything has been addressed above, but here's the next installment.

Red Army reforms and starts massive preparations

• Dangling modifier: Chief of Staff Boris Shaposhnikov was given full authority over operations in the Finnish theatre and ordered the suspension of frontal assaults in late December. Was he given authority in late December, or did he order suspension in late December? Or both? A comma or an “and he” would clear this up.

"and he" added. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet all-out offensive on the Karelian Isthmus

• On the eastern side of the Isthmus, the Finns continued to resist Soviet assaults, repelling them in the battle of Taipale.[94] Wouldn't the eastern side be the Russian side?

If I understood your question right: See maps, Taipale was in the Finnish side (and Soviets did not manage to conquer it by firearms during the Winter War). Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done I was just checking if this was a mistake, as Russia is for the most part east of Finland. delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Peace negotiations

• Confusing: In early January, the Finnish communist and feminist playwright Hella Wuolijoki offered to contact Moscow through the Soviet Union's ambassador to Sweden, Alexandra Kollontai. Did she make the offer through the ambassador, or did she offer to contact them and use the ambassador as a go-between?

Hopefully it more clear now. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• This seems contradictory: how is this cautious? Moscow's response was cautious. Molotov soon decided to extend recognition to the Ryti–Tanner government as the legal government of Finland and put an end to the puppet regime Terijoki Government of Kuusinen that the Soviets had set up.[95] The following sentence doesn't sound cautious, it sounds like they went into negotiations wholeheartedly. If it's two unrelated sentences, they don't flow. You could take out the first sentence.

"Moscow's response was cautious." removed. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• For the para beginning By the end of the winter Is the end of winter the end of March? Because later in this para it's talking about February. Can you be more specific with the 'end of winter' timeframe? Maybe 'by mid-February'?

mid-February is ok. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• This para doesn't mention Germans again: Both the Germans and the Swedish were keen to see an end to the Winter War, with the Swedes fearing the collapse of their neighbor. Why were the Germans interested in seeing the end of the war? (Also, 'with' is an awkward way to link these concepts. See User:Tony1/How to improve your writing#Sentences).

added Edwards and roles defined better. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Now the para no longer mentions Swedes' motivations for ending the war. Can you re-add the thing about fearing the collapse of their neighbor? Also, with the following sentence, you might want to offer a short explanation of what the Studie Nord was: The Germans had a plan called the Studie Nord.delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about now? Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of the Studie Nord is great. The 'fearing the collapse of their neighbor' thing is still absent, this way it reads like Sweden is wanting the end of the war because otherwise the Germans may invade them. Is that accurate? delldot ∇. 05:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

if the Swedes granted the Allied forces right of passage, then Nazi Germany would attack. Maybe you can reword this section (friendly suggestions)? Peltimikko (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that is what it sounds like now, I just wasn't sure if it was accurate. delldot ∇. 03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Last days of war

• I think there's a potential problem with bias when the article keeps emphacising that the Soviets' terms were harsh. From the soviet perspective, getting the ring around the lake to protect Leningrad were minimal terms; without that they would have had to fight on. Harsh would have been taking over the country like they had originally planned. Further, who says they were harsh? Again, the artcile should only be stating objective facts, not making comments on them. It's a fact that some official called the terms harsh. It's not a fact that they were harsh.

extra harshes removed. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet bombings

• interior is a dab link.

wlink removed. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Finnish Air Force

• This leaves the reader wondering: Most new aircraft shipments arrived during January 1940 Where'd they come from?

The Finns received foreign aid from various countries, some of material even arrived after the Winter War. The Finns had more aircraft after the Winter War than before the war, thanks to foreign aid. Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin countries added. Peltimikko (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Excellent. delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Coastal artillery

• In the following sentence, is there a reason why this is given in m and yd? Coastal artilleries had the ability to fire high-explosive shells of 152 millimetres (6 in) calibre to a range of 25,000 metres (27,000 yd). Wouldn't km and mi be more conventional with these distances?

m -> km Peltimikko (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all for now, the next installment after this one should probably finish it off. delldot ∇. 21:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

chiming in...

• "After the Soviet involvement in the Finnish Civil War in 1918, the countries initially lacked a formal peace treaty. In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions, the Viena and Aunus expeditions, across the Russian border." They didn't have a formal peace treaty? Did they need one? I really don't understand this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The formal peace treaty was signed in 1920 (Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Finnish)). Before that Russian fought their civil war and there was uncertainty in some areas, which side of the border they would be. Peltimikko (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• "attempted to assassinate the former White Commander-in-Chief General C.G.E. Mannerheim." Like white Russian? does this need explanation? Later you refer to him as Finnish.

Added "former Finnish White Guards Commander-in-Chief". Peltimikko (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• "With Joseph Stalin raised to near-absolute power by the Great Purge of 1938, Stalin's the Soviet Union changed its foreign policy toward Finland. in the late 1930s; It began pursuing the aim The Soviet lederaship believed that the old Empire had optimal security and territory; the first aim of the new policy was the recovery the provinces of Tsarist Russia lost during the chaos of the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War. The Soviet leadership believed that the old Empire had optimal security and territory, and the (Soviets wanted the newly-christened Leningrad to enjoy the same security) What does Leningrad have to do with this? Was Leningrad in the territory they lost? I don't think so. Explain, please.

Later the Soviet historiography explained that Winter War was needed as Leningrad's security was uncertain, as Finland probably would be a springboard for the Nazi Germany's assault. However, the very first public Soviet motive was to free the Finns from its bourgeois government, but it was unsuccesful and the Stavka decided to change the main motive at turn of the year 1939-1940. The western sources have also used the motive "protection of Leningrad" widely, so that why it is here (as silly as it sounds). Peltimikko (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• In Soviet order of battle, you have a paragraph on the purges. Isn't this repetitive? If you think it is important in mitigating the Soviet military problems, it has to be worked into the text better. I've also integrated some suggestions about changing the name of this section. See invisible text in your draft.Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Headings renamed by your suggestion. Peltimikko (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Last installment from delldot ∇.

Foreign volunteers

• The World War had not yet begun in earnest and the Winter War was known to the public as the Phony War. My buddy says that the Phoney War was something entirely unrelated--an engagement between French and British against the Germans along the Ziegfried line. He suggests instead, The World War had not yet begun in earnest; at that time, the the Winter War was the only real fighting in Europe and thus held major world interest.

By your suggestion. Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 05:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Franco–British plans for intervention

• I made some edits to this section on my buddy's advice, please check for correctness. (I was confused by the attacking thing since it never actually happened).
• My buddy suggests adding something like "nothing ever came of these schemes" after Another scheme was to execute a massive air strike with Turkish co-operation against the Caucasus oil fields.

Don't know if that is necessary... Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem.  Done delldot ∇. 05:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Which French proposals are we referring to here? The British revealed this plan on 16 December, but the cabinet decided to back away from French proposals of immediate intervention two days later. It wasn't clear that the French had proposed anything to the British before that.

I re-wrote this by Edwards. Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Through Soviet agents in the French and British governments, indications of Franco-British plans reached Stalin and may have contributed heavily to his decision to increase military pressure on the Finnish Army while at the same time offering to negotiate an armistice. Can we get a citation for this? Also, it might be better if it's broken into two sentences, it's a bit long. My buddy also suggests moving it to under the Peace of Moscow section, at the beginning of the first para.

I removed this until I have a reliable source. Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 05:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Finnish views

• How about a quick definition of Interim Peace in a dependent clause here: During the Interim Peace, Karelian local governments, parishes and provincial organizations

How about now? Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Great.  Done delldot ∇. 05:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• My buddy thinks this needs some more explanation: ...to find a solution for returning Karelia. What does 'returning Karelia' mean? Are they talking about trying to take Karelia back from the Soviets? Isn't that far-fetched?

Don't know. The "Return" has been an issue (in Finland) years-after-years and still today (though very weak). I added "Finnish Karelia". Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what "to find a solution for returning the Finnish Karelia" means, so I don't really understand this paragraph. Is it trying to say that they were trying to find a way to return Karelia to Finland? delldot ∇. 05:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed: "to find a way to return Karelia to Finland". This was the most important reason for the Finns to start the Continuation War. Peltimikko (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Western Allies

• My buddy takes exception with this: This failure led to the collapse of the Daladier government in France, and later, after the failure in the Norwegian Campaign, the fall of Chamberlain government in the United Kingdom.[142] He says that the Chamberlain government's fall didn't result from the Winter War; rather from the Blitzkrieg, the destruction of the French, and the British evacuation from Dunkirk. I don't know, but it does seem like a strong statement, maybe you should attribute it to some expert or set of experts? If you have no other choice, you could even say "is often attributed to..." or some such, if you have a reference to back that up.

I removed the Chamberlain government. Though is was mentioned by Edwards, it is maybe a little bit far-fetched. Peltimikko (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done delldot ∇. 05:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, these sections look great. These last few comments were relatively minor. I'll give the parts you changed another quick review and it shouldn't be long before I can pass this. delldot ∇. 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Most fixes look great, I made minor replies to some. I'm still concerned about the 'word by word' thing. Were you saying that some of the text in this article has been copied or is very similar to text in the references? Are you aware of WP:CP and what it takes to avoid a copyvio? (Apologies if I'm misunderstanding this or reading too much into what you said!) I can't see most of the references, can you quote the section from one of them that you think is 'almost word by word' so I can judge whether there's a copyright problem? Thanks! The article looks great, thanks for the hard work! delldot ∇. 05:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are few sentences which are very close to the sentence as in the original source book. However, multiple sentences and/sections are not even close the orginal source, but usually unrecognized mix of many source (though nothing is "own original research"). Peltimikko (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How many sentences? Can you reword them to be different from the source? I think even a single sentence is a problem if it's too similar, and since I can't see the source, I can't judge whether it's too similar. delldot ∇. 03:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-edited. Peltimikko (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that's all of my concerns. Thanks for all the hard work, you've certainly earned this! I'm taking your word for it that all of the text that is very similar to the sources has been reworded now, since I can't see the sources. Great job! delldot ∇. 03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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.