Talk:Finnish III Corps (Continuation War)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Finnish III Corps (Continuation War)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I will review, comments to follow over next few days. Zawed (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• I think it is worth adding to the first sentence a mention that Finland was allied to Nazi Germany e.g. "during the Continuation War when Finland fought alongside Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union." That helps set the scene for the following sentence.
  • As suggested.
• Perhaps mention it originally existed before the war as V Corps?
  • Good point, added.

Mobilization and pre-war plans

• This section needs to set the scene in terms of an alliance between Germany and Finland.
  • This is non-trivial to write about (see e.g. Continuation_War#German_and Finnish war plans) but I'll see about sourcing a short intro.
• Finnish officers participated in negotiations with the Germans in Salzburg: this makes it sound as though the Finnish Army on its own initiative entered in negotiations for an alliance (which is partly the reason for my first bullet point). It seems to me that the negotiations would have been with German High Command rather than Nazi Germany.
  • As above, I'll see what I can easily source without straying to WP:SYNTH.
    • For this and the one above: Added a brief note, with a {{see}} to Continuation_War#German_and Finnish war plans which discusses this in detail. Given how weirdly complex this topic is, the options to me appear to be to either largely skip it (along the lines of my recent edits) or spend way too many characters replicating the linked content.
• in charge of operations in the South-Eastern Finland: suggest "in charge of operations in the southeast of Finland"
  • As suggested.
• Recite Mannerheim's first name and also link his rank.
  • Done.
• peacetime and wartime should be spelt as one word, no hyphen or space.
  • Fixed.
• I suggest removing (which would become the war time III Corps) since it is mentioned at the end of this section.
  • Fixed.
• Dates are given in full, i.e. include the year. So long as it is clear that dates referred are still in 1941, you only need to refer to day and month after first mentioning the year.
  • I removed most, but kept a few where I felt it would be useful to remind the reader what year is being discussed (e.g. last mention of year in a preceding para).
• While forward elements of the German troops already began to arrive in Finland on 1 June 1941,[6] the negotiations continued in Helsinki on 3–6 June 1941.: suggest "Forward elements of the German troops began arriving in Finland on 1 June,[6] and further talks followed in Helsinki over the period 3 to 6 June."
  • Fixed, and combined the refs.
• under the label: not sure what is meant here; do you mean under a pretext, to disguise the real intention?
  • Correct; changed "label" to "pretext". FWIW, it's the worst "disguise" ever since the last time "additional exercises" was called for was when Finns mobilized for the Winter War.
• subordinated to the headquarters of the German Army of Norway on 15 June 1941.: Suggest "As arranged in the previous month's discussions, the corps, led by Major General Hjalmar Siilasvuo, was formally subordinated to the headquarters of the German Army of Norway on 15 June." This reminds readers of the agreement reached on this point.
  • Great suggestion, modified as suggested.
• On 18 June 1941, the peace-time V Corps was given the war-time designation III Corps.: suggest "On 18 June, V Corps was re-designated as III Corps."
  • As suggested

In Northern Finland, 1941–1944

• The German plans called for the III Corps to cover the...: suggest "The German plans called for the III Corps, now consisting only of the 3rd Division, to cover the..." This reminds readers of its OOB at this stage.
  • Nice, adapted as suggested.
• No date is given for when operations actually began, but obviously was prior to 30 July (the date that starts the 2nd paragraph).
  • Added: III Corps launches 1 July.
• The corps was reinforced by SS Division Nord.: How was Nord dispersed? Group J seems to me to be severely understrength, being regiment sized.
  • Fixed in prose: Combat elements to Group J, which was the single-regiment element, which the Germans took this about as well as you'd expect them to, given it's subordinating an SS div. to a Finnish regiment.
• General Siilasvuo reported to Nikolaus von Falkenhorst: give rank on first mention but thereafter don't use.
  • Added.
• Is Division J really worth a redlink?
  • It's redlinked for consistency with Template:Finnish_formations_WW2, but I don't really have an opinion on this.
• Group J and SS-Division Nord to go on the defensive.: as per my previous comment RE reinforcement, if Nord was attached to Group J, then there is no need to single out Nord here, just refer to Group J (or Division J as it is now known).
  • Did a larger re-jiggering of this part.
• 30 kilometers east of Kestenga: need consistency in expression of distances, miles is used in the first instance in the previous paragraph. Suggest using a conversion template as I have added to the previous paragraph.
  • Thanks, I didn't know about the conversion template. The distance confusion stems from Ziemke using miles while the Finnish sources use kilometers; I'll see if I can source a distance from the Finnish refs.
• the German high command, OKH: recited in full, with OKH in brackets.
  • Done.
• On 4 July 1942, III Corps was formally transferred back to Finnish command: drop the year here.
  • Done.
• to the Finnish commander-in-chief: still Mannerheim?
  • Correct, clarified.
• taking responsibility for the Kestenga area on 3 July.: grammatically the tense isn't right given the earlier part of the sentence refers to the next day. Suggest: "...taking responsibility for the Kestenga area the previous day."
  • Done

Karelian Isthmus, 1944

• I think names of sieges are now rendered in lower case unless starting a sentence.
  • Lowercased. I suppose this is a matter of whether it's a proper noun or not. The linked article seems to use what you stated, so let's go with that.
• commander-in-chief's reserve: still Mannerheim?
  • Correct, but not sure how/if to modify. The Finnish terminology here is a bit unconventional, with the key point being it's not a reserve of Mannerheim, the person, but of the position he's at. Contrast to a hypothetical designation of a NATO unit as "SACEUR's reserve", where calling it "SACEUR Wolters' reserve" has a bit of a weird tone. Or maybe I'm overreacting.
• the 18th Division was subordinated to III Corps: suggest "the rest of 18th Division was subordinated to III Corps". Earlier it is stated the assets of 18th Division was part of III Corps. Unless you mean the C-in-C relinquished his operation control of it?
  • The latter, i.e. the 18th is transferred from the C-in-C's (i.e. strategic) reserve to III Corps. Clarified in prose.
• Over the next days, III Corps : looks like a missing word after "next", maybe "few" or "several"?
  • Modified.
• VKT-line: No context for this, do you mean the defensive line created on 18 June?
  • Clarified and added a wikilink

After the Continuation War

• This section needs some context,e.g. "A ceasefire was agreed in September 1944 between the Soviet Union and Finland, which led to the Moscow Armistice. One of the terms of the armistice required Finland to ensure..."
  • As suggested, reads a lot better.
• participating in the operation.: what operation? Or do you meant the Lapland War. If the latter, suggest "fighting against the Germans."
  • Thanks, good suggestion. I recall struggling with the wording here.
• Suggest expanding to explain its OOB at this stage
  • Done.
• Is there an official date of disbandment and did Siilasvuo remain in command for the duration of the war?
  • As far as I can tell, III Corps is re-designated "1st Division" (distinct from the Continuation War era 1st Division) at some point in late 1944, presumably around 4-5 December, when the Finnish Army is officially demobilized. Naturally, the Lapland War still continues after this point, albeit with many formations removed from the III Corp/1st Div. I'll hunt for a good source for this, as it'd be good to mention even if the thing is bit of a mess.
    • Added a basic outline of this. The 1st Div, to which III Corps turns into, never disbands but rather slowly morphs into a part of the modern FDF command structure.

Other stuff

• In the OOBs, the cite should be outside of the closing bracket. Is there scope for an OOb for the 1942–43 period?
  • My sources don't have an easily available OOB for 1942-43. The template doesn't have a good place for the cite: I can either have it inside the parens or after the unit name. Moved to after the unit name for now.
• Place of publication for the Nenye ref? Ditto Ziemke. Both these seem to be reliable being official histories or published by reputable companies, AGF on the others.
  • Can't identify for Ziemke (I might be blind). Nenye's cover weirdly lists two locations, let me know if the formatting is not great.
• Image tags look OK. Maybe add an image of Siilasvuo for human interest, as the majority of the pictures are maps.
  • Added one of Siilasvuo & Falkenhorst
• One dupe link, Lake Lagoda.
  • Fixed.

That's it for me, although I made a number of what I thought would be non-contentious edits to the article as I went along, you may want to check these to make sure that you are happy with them. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for the review, this seems comprehensive and very helpful. I expect I'll be able to address these by end of next weekend, and will ping you once done. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks again for the review, the comments were very useful. These have now been addressed, albeit in the case of a few (see e.g. two first points for "Mobilization and pre-war plans" and the one about "commander-in-chief's reserve") I'm not sure if my edits address your comments completely. Could you take a look and let me know if I missed anything above, or if there are any further changes you'd like to see?-Ljleppan (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This looks good for GA as I believe the article meets the necessary criteria in coverage, sourcing, structure, readability and supporting materials. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)