| Revision as of 04:21, 30 November 2009 editNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,137 edits →Winter War: supp← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:51, 1 December 2009 edit undoRJHall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers90,673 edits →Winter WarNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ::: Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article ]. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. ] (]) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | ::: Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article ]. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. ] (]) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support''' (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) ] (]) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | *'''Support''' (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) ] (]) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment'''—Overall a fine article on an obscure conflict. My main issue is that the lead section does not properly cover the actual war. I would at least expect to see mention of the motti tactics, the Mannerheim line, and the main Russian assaults. The word "]" is used in the article but not explained or wikilinked. But otherwise I think the article is of FA quality. Thanks.—] (]) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:51, 1 December 2009
Winter War
- Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. 30 November 2009 will be the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently GA, and A-Class on WikiProject Military history. Peltimikko (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Restart, old nom. Images, alt text and dabs cleared. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
- Comments -
What makes http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6299 a reliable source?
- Semi-reliable. Other book source (Jowett; Snodgrass) gives pretty similar figures. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- LIkewise http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/english?
- A source is semi-reliable. However, added more reliable Helsingin Sanomat. Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't regard either www.axishistory.com or www.feldgrau.com as being reliable sources as they both rely on material submitted by amateurs, and would strongly suggest that you replace these references with refs to the books you mention. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Karjalan liitto and Helsingin Sanomat have basicly a same message. The issue is well known, and there is the article Karelian question in Finnish politics. Still, maybe remove of Karjalan liitto as a source? Furthermore, axishistory.com, feldgrau.com and db2.com are removed. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that the FA criteria now require "high-quality reliable sources" so things that the nominator themselves admits are "semi-reliable" aren't good enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support (I'm not sure if I need to vote again in this relisted FA) Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment—Overall a fine article on an obscure conflict. My main issue is that the lead section does not properly cover the actual war. I would at least expect to see mention of the motti tactics, the Mannerheim line, and the main Russian assaults. The word "revanche" is used in the article but not explained or wikilinked. But otherwise I think the article is of FA quality. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)