The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:22, 3 February 2009 [1].

M249 squad automatic weapon[edit]

Nominator(s): Patton^t/c

I've put a lot of work into this article, and I'm fairly confident it is worthy of FA status. This is my first so there may be a few problems; I will try to deal with them as soon as I can if you spot any. Thanks to Juliancolton for copyediting, and also to participants in the peer and a class reviews! Patton^t/c 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concerns raised here are too much to fix during this FAC. I'd like to withdraw, and perhaps nominate again in a month or two when I've addressed them.--Patton^t/c 12:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are by US Armed Forces soldiers or employees, hence public domain. No issues (the little spat about which soldier is in the photo is not an actionable issue, this article is about the weapon). Jappalang (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet comments.

I still think the phrase "it was decided" needs a cite or needs removal.

I have changed it to "the army decided", because that's what the reference for that sentence says.--Patton^t/c 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing yet about sustained rate of fire which is quoted variously as 75 or 85 rpm.

done--Patton^t/c 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could mention the typical rounds that are used, especially M855 and M856. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done--Patton^t/c 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I took part in editing this article to get it in shape for GA-Class and I've also had my hand in for minor comprehension and word flow issues for this FAC. With all that, I am a rank amateur in terms of weapons of this sort which means that I am very much able to look at this article from the viewpoint of a first-time reader. I think it is well-formed, well-illustrated and well-referenced. I support FA-Class status for it. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now The article lacks any information about whether this weapon has ever been used in combat, if so how often, how many were built and how widely they are distributed. I can't see it as a featured article without that sort of information. Looie496 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've renamed the "history" section to devlopment and will start work on a "combat history" section. It may be after the weekend before I'm finished though. Update Work started on the talk page, wiill paste in when it's finished.--Patton^t/c 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoS cleanup needed; I left sample edits, but there is more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been addressed.--Patton^t/c 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Patton, nice work. I think it would be relevant to give comparative figures for weight range and rounds carried for the weapon carried by other squad members. Also I agree with Looie496 that production run and combat service should be covered, ~~and is it only in US service?~~ Were Spiel Chequers 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The M249 is only in U.S. service, though the Minimi is in service with quite a few countries.--Patton^t/c 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Good start, but I'd suggest a few citation additions and some other fixes. I've thrown a few fact tags on things that should be cited, and I'm curious about the "heavy" comment in the first line of the design details section. Is that in comparison to other SAW-type weapons, or just in general? If it's in comparison to predecessor weapons, I'd strongly suggest including a small table comparing the different aspects of those weapons: caliber, weight, magazine, etc.

The Bonds citations need page numbers.
I'm extremely confused by your Web citation style. Are you putting Web citations in both the References section and the in-line citations? I wouldn't disagree with it, but I haven't seen it before, and if that's not the case, things need to be cleared up.
I feel a brief history of combat usage is almost required in this sort of thing. I'd suggest the Webley Revolver as an excellent example to follow, and I strongly encourage you to include some notable specific examples of usage, perhaps where the weapon's user was recognized for the action and received a medal. I'm sure there's plenty of examples from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
"Currently" usually is a redundant word.
In the development section "Since then ... had" is an awkward sentence construction. "Since then" implies that the action is still going on, but I don't think that's what you mean.
"Simulations of all environments" is unusual -- did they actually test it in places like Fort Greely (cold-weather testing) or Panama (jungle testing), or did they just simulate it? I'm not familiar with simulated testing of weapons other than for firing tests.

No they actually froze the weapons, threw them in mud, and put them in rooms full of steam to simulate different environments.--Patton^t/c 12:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the design details section, talking about the rate of fire, "speeding of the mechanism" isn't grammatically correct and doesn't tell me anything about what is done mechanically to improve the rate of fire.
In the final paragraph of the design details section, third sentence, which "it" are you talking about -- the RPK or the M249?
It's not clear why the Ultimax 100 is mentioned in the design details section. I'd infer that's because it's considered a superior weapon, but that's not stated outright.
In the second sentence of the reception section, "as effective" ... as what?

That's what I've found with a quick readthrough. Give me a shout on my talk page, and I'll be happy to review it again when you think it's ready. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original. This also applies to titles of books, etc.
Please alphabetize your references.
I can't make heads or tails of which references are being refered to from the Notes. The "FAS.org" thing.. is this a website? or make it easier to figure out WHICH reference it is. From the way the note is structured, I'd have guessed it would have been under "FAS.org" but... eventually I figured out it was the "Squad ..." ref that's out of alphabetical order. I'll do a source review when they are sorted out. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are going to do a history section the weapon was used by the SAS only (not the British Army) one notable use was by members of the Bravo Two Zero patrol but the article lacks any mention of armaments. Its sometime since I read the book but that stuck in my mind Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually own The One that Got Away, though I don't remember any mention of the M249.--Patton^t/c 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this FAC as I feel the concerns here at too great to be addressed during the duration of the review. I may renominate in one or two months after I have addressed the concerns.--Patton^t/c 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.