Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/FN P90

FN P90
Article is very informative and it deserves a Featured article status.

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 10:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Skinny87
Although a good article, I don't think it is quite FA status at the moment. Here are my initial 'comments:


 * 'The weapon's name is an abbreviation of Project 9.0, which spawned it.' - Being picky, but not quite accurate, as it's the FN P90, not just the P90.
 * 'Since 2005, the P90 has also been offered to civilian shooters as the PS90, a semi-automatic sporting version with a lengthened barrel.' - For consistency, as citations are used throughout the rest of the lede, I would put one here as well.
 * Do we have anything more in terms of research and development details? Were there any problems with the designs, or elements added or discarded?
 * 'The P90 was developed by FN between 1986 and 1990 in conjunction with the 5.7x28mm cartridge' - I would mention that this is for mounting extra furniture, otherwise it isn't clear. Skinny87 (talk)


 * FN is the manufacturer's initials so stating that there would probably create unnecessary detail. The meaning of the 'FN' in 'FN P90' is established in the previous sentence: "The FN P90 is a selective fire personal defense weapon (PDW) designed and manufactured by FN Herstal in Belgium."
 * This sentence in the summary already cites a source, and did when your feedback was posted.
 * Only FN's move from the SS90 cartridge to the SS190 cartridge, and the simultaneous switch from the SS90 magazine to the SS190 magazine.
 * This comment is unclear. ROG5728 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sumanch
88% Sumanch (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These two references do not talk anything about this gun. So these are inaccurate.


 * These two references state that the Pakistani Special Service Group (SSG) is a user of the P90. ROG5728 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Steve
I'm afraid I don't think this is especially close to FA at the moment, but with a bit of work could start to head that way.


 * I find the prose to be a little basic and not really of a professional or brilliant standard. There are too many short sentences that should really be merged to create some flowing prose, and frequent instances of mismatched facts in no logical order (eg. "The P90 was developed between 1986 and 1990. A P90 TR variant was introduced in 1999, featuring a triple rail interface system for mounting accessories." from the lead). Some other awkward sentence examples which would need rewording include "When the dial is in the "S" position – weapon safe, when "1" – semi-automatic fire, when "A" – fully automatic fire." and "The weapon's name is an abbreviation of Project 9.0, which spawned it" (what is Project 9.0?). I think the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit by someone who isn't too involved in the subject.


 * Although links are good for going to a subject that you don't know much about, I feel there's an over-reliance on them here, and in an FA there should probably be a little more explanation of some of the overly technical features of the gun. For instance, straight blowback, short recoiling, closed bolt in the first para of design. Ideally this complete design should be more clearly explained. Likewise bullpup. The simple explanation of ambidextrous is a good example of the level of explanation that the technical terms would benefit from. Obviously not all tech terms should need explaining (eg. muzzle velocity, semi automatic), but at the moment the article is too technical for someone who has little idea about guns.


 * The list of users table currently takes up one whole third of the entire page length and I'm afraid this seems excessive, especially in its current format. Would there be any way to covert this into prose? Or perhaps keep the table format, but convert the different users of each country into a box of prose. I don't personally feel there needs to be "every single user ever" included either. Given that there are perhaps in the region of 80 users listed there (I'm guestimating) I imagine that some of the users are fairly trivial next to units that use it on a regular basis.


 * Referencing: There seems to be too much of it. Ten different refs to confirm that Korps Commandotroepen (KCT) use the gun, and eleven for the secret service is waaayyy more than necessary. Two or three is enough.


 * Lead: Large numbers of cites in the lead always worry me and here it appears that several facts presented don't seem to be expanded upon or explained in the main body (eg."In 2009, the National Rifle Association added the P90 and PS90 to the NRA Tactical Police Competition standards. The PS90 sporting model is also becoming increasingly popular among civilian shooters.")


 * Notability: I have no wish to get into goldeneye or stargate territory, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the article that really describes the weapon's fame. Is there anything that can be added to help highlight its notability? This is quite a famous gun, but the article doesn't seem to suggest it.


 * Layout: Its a bit technical in its sections at the moment. I like the sections used in M249 light machine gun, which seem a bit simpler.

Overall, I think the article is a little too complex and not accessible enough for people with little idea about the subject. It would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes and a less technical perspective.

Hope it helps, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)