I've listed this article for peer review because I’m hoping to get the article the FA status for 30 November 2009, the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently the article has been a GA candidate for two week, but the line seems to move very slowly and the D-Day is closing... Suggestions and bold edits are welcomed! Peltimikko (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as the ALT text goes, blind people can't see teh image, so if you just say that it is a map showing the positions, they can't see what they are. So to be useful, it has to explain the symbols on the diagrams and where/what they are. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more descriptions to ALTs. Peltimikko (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I want to say that this article is looking very good. I have only a few comments:

• According to the Featured article tools there are a few disambig links that you need to sort through. These are: Civic Guard, Koivisto, Log, Minesweeper, Motti, Rearmament. Please change the link to the more correct one.

 Done Peltimikko (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the link checker tool (part of the Featured article tools) indicates that there is a dead external link. Can you please investigate? It may need to be removed unfortunately.

 Done Thank you for the tip. Peltimikko (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally a few paragraphs probably need an in line citation as they have the appearance of being uncited (although the level of citations throughout the article as a whole is impressive):
  • Last sentence of the Soviet military plan subsection of Soviet advance to the Mannerheim Line;
  • First paragaph in the Coastal artillery subection of Naval warfare section; and
  • Second last paragraph in Franco-British plans for intervention.

 Done Peltimikko (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that is it so far for my review. I'd take a crack at the GA review myself but I don't do them anymore, as too many people don't appreciate the effort put into them and either (when failed) whinge about being failed, or (when passed) other people complain about me marking too easily. Basically, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, so end result: retirement from that part of wiki. Anyway, I digress massively...Good work and good luck with your goal. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article - all the work which has gone into it really shows. The article is very clearly written and well structured and the maps are excellent. I think that it's just about ready for an A class review, but have the following comments you may wish to consider:

• As Germany invaded Poland on 1 September, the invasion of Finland on 30 November was just short of four months later, not three

September, October, November... I think it is three. Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'First Soviet offensive' sub-section seems a bit out of place in the 'background' section. I'd suggest that it be moved into the next section

Though there is a mention of Soviet assault, the section handles more political attack. I changed the heading "Soviet military and political attack" Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that you need to explain what a 'mottis' is

It is explained once, but I added link to next word of "motti". Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some material isn't covered by citations

I added some links. Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the see also links are already in the body of the article and, if possible, the rest should be integrated into the text

It is possible. However, some links are "Winter War slang" such Molotov Coctail and Motti. So, this is good place to highlight them. Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:SEEALSO links already in the article shouldn't be repeated - this will probably come up when the article goes to a FAC Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest un-fixing the size of the photos; there's a lot of them and they made the article look rather cluttered on my 24" monitor Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean removing "250px" ? Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except for the maps. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]