Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M249 light machine gun


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has come a long way since I started working on it, and I think it's worthy of A class. This is my first A class candidate, so it might not be up to scratch yet, and it is rather short. Feedback on how to improve it if it isn't already good enough would be appreciated.-- Patton t / c 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments; as discussed on IRC, to avoid repetition, I'll add my comments here.
 * The lead should be expanded a bit.
 * I fixed some MoS issues, although nothing major.
 * Are there any images where the gun is pointing to the left? As a general rule, the gun should point at the text.


 * I hope this helps! JonCatalán(Talk) 19:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedit. I've expanded the lead a bit, it's now 1144 bytes in size, up from 836. I don't know if this is long enough yet but it's a start. I looked for some images. commons has loads of images of the M249 but unfortunatly nearly all of them are left pointing, and the ones that are right pointing aren't of much value becuase you either can't see the gun very well or the picture adds nothing to the text; you'll see if you look lol.-- Patton t / c 21:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support; regardless. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support
 * "The gun was introduced in 1984, judged the most effective weapon to address the lack of automatic firepower in small units." Missing an and, I believe?
 * In the lead it shouldn't say currently, so it doesn't go out of date.
 * I'd move the M29 being fired from its tripod image from the right to the left and to later in the article, so it points at it and there aren't three in a row right next to each other on the right.
 * "He also said that the cloth pouch preferred over plastic box for holding linked ammunition," That doesn't make any sense at all to me.
 * The References section should contain only entries for the books using cite book and refbegin and refend, while a Notes section should be added with reflist. The inlines therefore should only include the last name of the author and page number.
 * In the Future section, rewrite it from the present to comply with WP:TRITE.


 * It looks pretty good and is well on its way, so please fix these and I'll support it. – Joe Nu  tter  22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All done except the refrences. It's now 20 past midnight here so I'll do it later.-- Patton t / c 00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)]
 * Refs all ✅-- Patton t / c 19:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The refs look good now, supporting. – Joe Nu  tter  19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support. I think the article has a couple of remaining concerns that need to be addressed.
 * The sentence in the lead "The U.S. Marine Corps is currently considering designs for an infantry automatic rifle which is planned to complement and partially replace the M249 in their service" offers no reason why the Marines might be unhappy with the M249. I think it's important to tell the reader what shortcomings the weapon might have.
 * If the BAR was so good for so many years, why was it phased out? Add a brief phrase.
 * "It was decided that..." Who decided?
 * The descriptions of the weapon's usage in a squad or platoon appear in several places. The lead section mentions usage (of course) which is perfectly fine. The first text occurrence is at the end of History ("One man in every 4-man fireteam—the automatic rifleman—was issued with the new weapon to provide automatic fire for his unit") and the second one is in Design and features ("Tactically, SAWs are either carried with a maneuvering unit and fired while handheld or positioned to remain stationary and provide covering fire for other units"). Wouldn't it be best if the tactical usage of the weapon is described fully in one paragraph rather than divided? Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly done, though I couldn't find out who decided that. I knew this would come up in one of the reviews, though there are no sources out there naming names. I'm sorry but I can't find a source telling me who decided that.-- Patton t / c 00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear ya--sometimes the available information doesn't measure up to our expectations. Thanks for correcting the points that were fixable! I'm liking the article more now... I would like to see Joe_N's reference suggestion carried out before I'm 100% supportive of A-Class level on this article. Take a look at other A-Class articles such as 37 mm Gun M3 which has a "Notes" heading with abbreviated mention of the relevant books and articles followed by a "References" heading which lists the major books on the subject. Another A-Class model is SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) which has three reference sections: a short "Notes" heading, a "References" heading which contains all the brief mentions of books and articles, and a final "Bibliography" heading listing the major books. Changing to this style of reference is a lot of work but must be done for advancement past GA class. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs done :-)-- Patton t / c 19:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on the refs! The Fighting Fit: The Singapore Armed Forces book is used as a reference for what fact? Something about the CETME Ameli's weight or rate of fire? Which page number is the supporting section found on? I tried a google books search for "M249", "CETME" and "Ameli" inside the volume and came up empty. I don't have a physical copy. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The books are fine, but I'm not yet happy with the agreement between the brief notes and the referenced articles that appeared in periodicals. For instance, reference number 18 should take me to an article where hard-to-clean slots and gaps are described. I go down to the "Notes" section and it says "usmcweapon.com – The M249 squad automatic weapon". I go down further to the "References" section and I have trouble pinning ref 18 to one of the listed articles. There's one by David Savage that appears correct but the Note doesn't mention Savage and the Reference doesn't mention usmcweapon.com. You could add Savage to the Note or something... Personally, I like to have periodicals and websites appear as links up in the "Notes" section, leaving only the heavy books sitting down in the "References" or "Bibliography" section. My one A-Class job: Port Chicago disaster, has this format. The reader goes down to, say, reference 18 and clicks on the usmcweapon.com link and gets as much of the article as they are willing to show, which in this case is an unsigned, unattributed webpage on David Savage's website. Only in the Articles directory does Savage show that he's the author... he also gives the article's secondary title as "1000 Rounds per Minute Can't Be Wrong". :) Basically, my position is that all the cite books fit best down at the bottom but all the cite webs and cite news bits go up in "Notes" for maximum clickability. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fighting fit is used for "the finest light machine gun in the world today". WIll do now.- Patton t / c 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

<=Support. The article now meets all A-Class requirements, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.