Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M249 squad automatic weapon


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009.

M249 squad automatic weapon

 * Nominator(s): Patton t /c

I withdrew the last FAC for this article because I was afraid the concerns were too many to address during the FAC. Anyway, I feel I have addressed all of them and am nominating it for featured status again. It's come a long way; I have created a "operational history" section and incorporated the reception into it. Thanks in advance to all reviewers.--Patton t /c 13:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Nom restarted. Old nom. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Images reviewed, outstanding questions on sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've satisfied the sources concerns now.-- Patton t / c 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The oppose over referencing

Comments by, note that I've only read thoroughly to the end of the Development section. Not finished reading through yet - will finish in a day or so. Images look all good and have appropriate (free) licences, Referencing looks good (though I'm not keen on the use of titles in the notes sections...just for the sake of neatness) *Acronyms (and jargon) need to be consistent, explained at first use and minimised. I think that all acronym use needs to be checked for these issues, eg: *Some text issues involving convoluted wording and redundant words. (Don't count this as gospel - brilliant prose is not my forte) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * new 5.56 mm LMG - think that this needs "caliber" as this is the first text use of the term.
 * reference to studies of non-5.56 mm cartridges, it is already clear that 5.56 is being talked about and this is perhaps better as reference to studies of other caliber light machine guns
 * HK lobbied - Full company name needed on first use
 * FN - same again. Though it is expanded in the lead I think the first use in the text has to be a full name with acronym in brackets.
 * built in the FNH factory - should this be the FN factory ? - all been dealt with - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some parts of the text are unclear.
 * Were Rock Island Arsenal awarded a dev contract or did they leap off on their own ? - fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Development contracts for the SAW - were all of these for the 6mm cartridge only ?
 * Not made clear who designates the experimental models (eg: XM233) - fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the XM249E1 variant and how does it differ from the XM249. Is this important enough to include ? Which version was the final M249 ? - better now - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * was phased out in the 1950s, as the M14 was scheduled to replace it - does this mean the phase out happened while the M14 was replacing it or simply as a consequence of the replacement schedule ? perhaps better as was phased out and replaced by the M14 in the 1950s - this is fixed but I'm not sure that the text reads well yet - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The official adoption and standardization took place on February 1, 1982. - does standardization refer to it being published as an army standard or does this mean something different ? If published as a standard can this be made more explicit and hence clearer ? Appears fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Addition) - article notes the sustained fire rate but also mentions the quick change barrels. Usually then army doctrine specifies a higher rate of fire with some specified period of barrel changes. I think that having this information would bring the importance of the barrel change notes into focus.
 * It has a quick-change barrel so the gunner can rapidly replace  an overheated or jammed barrel can be rapidly replaced by the gunner
 * There are tense problems at the start of the Development section. eg: The M2 is was  a large-caliber heavy machine gun. Both are  were  very heavy weapons. Both the M2 and M60 still exist !. First three sentences of this paragraph need some work
 * Sometime before the end of Fiscal Year 1972 (ending June 30, 1972). Unless fiscal year is critical for understanding isn't this better as Prior to July 1972 as it is clear it has to happen after March 1972 from the proceeding sentences.
 * There were also  In addition to these problems, there were  complaints that the front sight required special adjustment tools
 * Neither of these designs was finalized March 1972, when  by the time  the Army published the specifications document for the planned SAW in March 1972
 * Congress deleted funds for the M249 from the Fiscal Year 1986 defense budget, then retroactively set aside the program's prior year's funds for other purposes, including retirement and pay raises - all dealt with - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One information question I couldn't readily see the answer to.....How many have been made ?
 * Should there be mention that the belts are disintigrating ones? It certainly should be mentioned that the M249 is designed to take 20/30 round M16 magazines (or so the glorious internet tells me) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to mention that the belts are disintegrating, as all metal ones are, the only ones that don't disintegrate are the old fabric ones. The article already mentions in numberous places that the M249 can use M16 mgazines. As for production figures, I haven't found any at all in books or on the internet.-- Patton t / c 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are non-disintegrating metal belts in current service. They are in common use in Russian designs like the RPD and PK.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything in section 1 and 3 corrected; Patton, you're welcome :P. I'll leave the middle bit to you as I don't know the technical stuff. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a mllion Ironholds! Peripitus, thanks for your review! I've corrected the point from section 2. Dunno what the XM249E1 was, someone else added that sometime during this FAC, wasn't there at the start. Have clarified the M14 bit. The M14 wasn't actually schedueled to replace it as a SAW/LMG, it just had an automatic mode so the Army didn't think a new SAW/LMG was needed. "Standardisation" was also slipped in there somehow, wasn't there at the start of the FAC. I look forward to your review of the rest of the article.-- Patton t / c 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The XM249E1 was specifically mentioned in the FY 1981 Department of the Army Historical Summary. "The Fabrique National (FN) XM249 weapon was modified to incorporate the changes recommended during the selection process. Testing of the improved weapon (XM249E1) and ammunition (XM855 and XM856) began in June 1981 at Aberdeen Proving Ground."
 * 2) Actually, the heavy barrel version of the M14 (the M15) was intended to replace the M1918 BAR. However, the M15 was never put into production as they figured a M14 equipped with a bipod could perform the job just as well.  The M14/M15 were advertised as replacing the M3 submachinegun, M2 carbine, M1 rifle, and M1918 BAR.
 * 3) Standardizing means that the item has been "type classified" as a "Standard" item. In other words, it has been determined to be either acceptable for introduction into the U.S. Army inventory or can made acceptable without any further developmental effort prior to fielding.  In contrast, an item can be adopted but technically remain type classified as a "Limited Procurement" item.  It is probably too technical for use in this article. However, a discussion of "type classification" might be a worthwhile article on its own.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

'''Tech. Review
 * Dabs (checker tool)
 * There are some self-redirects, I don't know if they are intentional or not, if they aren't they need to be removed.
 * ..are up to speed as well.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * External links (checker tool)
 * ..are found up to speed
 * Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
 * ..are found up to speed.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! The M249 squad automatic weapon self redirect is actually a link from the infobox to the variants section. The Mk 46 Mod 0 self redirect is in the navigation template at the bottom of the page, not in the article itself.-- Patton t / c 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, that's what I wanted to know. Cheers.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, as I did before. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

References—Since Sandy requested a check, what makes the following sites/sources reliable? -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Arsenal-bg.com
 * Jane's
 * U. S. Army Board Study Guide By ArmyStudyGuide.com


 * Arsenal is a Bulgarian weapons manufacturer. They should have a pretty good grip on what their own products weigh.
 * Jane's Information Group is the oldest publisher of defense related books and magazines in existence, and probably the largest. They can trace their history back 111 years.  In particular, Jane's International Defence Review is a well respected periodical.  It has been in publication for over 40 years.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate. If Jane's isn't reliable on weapons/ships/planes, nothing will be. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would be like questioning whether or not The Times is a reliable source for news. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And ArmyStudyGuide.com? -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That I'm not sure about; it appears to be an unofficial guide to passing Army tests. Patton, can you tell us which bits you used it in? Maybe we could find references for them from a more reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain that he only used it to establish the "basic load" of ammunition carried by a M249 gunner. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's not important, then the refs to the study guide can be removed. If its important, there should be other sources to back it up. Either way I'm not seeing the reliability of this unofficial army publication. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reiterating Support from previous FAC. This article is comprehensive, adequately covers its subject, and presents its information in clear and concise prose. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments, some from before restart (but updated in any case):
 * Regarding cites of "U.S. Army - Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel — Volume 11, Appendix 10 - The Army Small Arms Program": I believe I found this document online here; if this is indeed correct, please add the link. In any case, the OCLC number is 227968366.


 * Regarding Note 48, "Kelly, Al (2007). M249 Squad automatic weapon. U.S. Army. Presentation at the National defence review": Are you citing a video or a paper of the presentation? I haven't been able to locate this online. In the interests of verifiability, let's clearly tell readers in what format this is available, and where.


 * Regarding Note 47, "Smith, Jim (15 May 2003). Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Soldier Lessons Learned. U.S. Army.": Isn't this available here, here and here? Also, it appears to be a ten-page document; if that is the case, the citation should present the title within quotes, not italics.


 * There is an item listed in References that is never cited ("Miller, David (2003). The Illustrated Directory of 20th Century Guns. Zenith Imprint..."). Is there a missing short-form cite, or should this item be removed from the References?
 * This is still listed as a Reference, but not cited. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another item in References needs clarification ("Jones, Colonel Charles A. (December 12, 2005). "Phased out in 1960s, M14 was ‘very reliable’". The Lore of the Corps."). What is 'The Lore of the Corps'? If it's a journal, it needs to be italicized, and we need the name of the publisher.
 * I note that you added italics, but we can't evaluate the source without knowing the publisher. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a magazine called the lore of the corps. AfAIK it's not printed by the USMC but is independent.-- Patton t / c 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've used "Lastname – Title, p x" for short-form cites. I can't say that I like it, but to each his own. They weren't consistent, though—some of the endashes were hyphens—so I've standardized to endash for those throughout the Notes.
 * Almost there. Maralia (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cleanup up what I could. What's wrong the PEO soldier lessons learned cite? I don't see why it needsto be in quotes rather than italics when that's the name of the report. Thanks a million for you review anyway, you've done loads :-).-- Patton t / c 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated my comments above. Per WP:MOSITALICS, italics are used for long works; the titles of short works (such as papers) are presented in quote marks. I've made the change on the Kelly and Smith References and cites. A couple issues remain above. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this comment is addressed.-- Patton t / c 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Following up on my last bullet point above, I tried to find information about a magazine named The Lore of the Corps in order to evaluate whether it would meet WP:RS. I was not able to find any magazine by that name. From this, it appears the piece was in fact printed in the Army Times. Please fix, and be extra careful next time to take full notes on each source; we have to provide enough information for readers to look them up. That was my last remaining issue from the list above, but I'm not quite prepared to support as it's been several weeks since I read through the full article; will give it another read after I make it through my watchlist. Maralia (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1c, per no action taken on demonstrating reliability of web source above. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Good job you saw it because the figure it gave is apparently wrong ;-)-- Patton t / c 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey, that takes care of surface reading of sources for me. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, tending to oppose Support Concerns addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhatfield (talk • contribs) 22:14, April 9, 2009

This article fails the copyedit test. For example:
 * "Neither design was finalized by March 1972, when the Army published the specifications document for the planned SAW.[14]" is repeated. This should not be picked up at FAC stage and throws out serious question marks about the rest of the editing.
 * Short, choppy sentences need to be fixed, eg. "The HK XM262 reportedly came a close second.[21] In September, FN was awarded a "maturity phase" contract for further development of the XM249.[22] Testing of the new XM249 began in June 1981.[23] The official adoption took place on February 1, 1982."
 * Sentences that are too long need to be fixed, eg. "Because army doctrine required troops to use a rifle's semi-automatic mode on most occasions to increase accuracy and conserve ammunition, the M14 and M16 rifles used by the U.S. Army had not been designed with sustained automatic fire in mind, and overheated or jammed regularly." Also, avoid starting sentences with "Because..."; "Due to..." is preferred.
 * Under-linked. For example in the first paragraph alone: automatic (as in fire), firepower, machinegun, squad, volume of fire & rifle. Paragraph two: jammed, bipod, tripod & magazine. Also "Picatinny rails were added to the feed cover and forearm for the mounting of optics, lasers, vertical foregrips". Now you have even lost me - Picatinny rail? Look for terms that may be unknown to a ten year old and link them: we are here to educate.
 * Innapropriate language: "Soldiers are generally satisfied with the weapon's performance, though there have been many reports of clogging with dirt and sand." Rather choose some of the (excellent) information from the Operational history.
 * "U.S. Army soldier holds an M249 SPW in Iraq." I see that this is the special purpose, but that is not clear in the text.
 * Lastly, "The U.S. Army does, however, want to replace aging M249s with new SAWs." should be "...newer SAW models"
 * I marked this as "Comment, tending to oppose" because if I remember correctly a single oppose may stall the entire FAC process indefinitely and while these concerns are serious, I don't intend to block the FAC. It is unlikely that I will be able to check editing in the near future. The content is very good, and I strongly support the effort to improve all our weapon system articles. Dhatfield (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Points 1-4 and 7 fixed. Someone more specialised (patton?) will have to do 5 and 6. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ironholds. Have fixed 6, though I don't quite understand point 5.-- Patton t / c 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The intention was that you generalise the above comments to re-look at the whole article. Examples of remaining problems:
 * "Studies of improved 5.56 mm ammunition, with better performance characteristics, began.[11] The earliest reference to studies of other caliber cartridges for the LMG did not appear until 1969.[12] In July 1970, the U.S. Army finally approved development of an LMG, with no specified calibre. At this time, the nomenclature "Squad Automatic Weapon" (SAW) was introduced.[8] Actual design of alternative cartridges for the LMG did not begin until July 1971." Five sentences where two or three would flow much better."
 * You have a "rior" in para 3, Development.
 * Design details is still massively underlinked.
 * With respect to point 5, in the introduction I would prefer "Lieutenant Colonel Jim Smith of the U.S. Army spoke positively of the M249, claiming that it "provided the requisite firepower at the squad level as intended", but a report entitle Lessons Learned in Afghanistan found that 54% of SAW gunners had problems maintaining their weapons in the desert environment". Something like that. It sounds better than "some guys said it's cool, but it breaks".
 * I trust you will follow through on this. Overall, good content, references and images. Vote changed to support.Dhatfield (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;are there any other outstanding issues? If so, I'll keep this on the "urgent" template. It looks like it could use further auditing for redundancies ("two different gas port sizes", "partially replace the M249 in its service.") and other glitches (overlinking, some awkward/suboptimal phrasing, etc.). Would it be possible to contact another outside copy-editor to eliminate lingering issues? Copy-editing is a team effort that requires multiple passes. &mdash; Deckiller 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind doing a pass of copyediting myself, but that should be approved by the regular authors, especially during FAC. Dhatfield (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, why is the x in 5.56x45 mm NATO not spaced? Why are reports in WP:ITALICS?  (Books, journals, periodicals and newspapers are italicized.)  Page ranges in citations should use WP:ENDASHes, not hyphens, I'll ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix them, but please note for next time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.