Wikipedia:Peer review/FN P90/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

FN P90[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is very informative with lots of references. So it should be rated as Featured article.

Thanks, CoercorashTalkContr. 09:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is quite well-written and reasonably clear to a reader who comes to it with little background knowledge. I think it's close to ready for FAC. Here are a few suggestions, mostly based on guidelines in the Manual of Style.


  • I'd recommend unlinking any common English words so that the remaining links stand out as important. In the last paragraph of the lead, for example, I would not link "military", "police", or "law enforcement agencies" because most readers of English already know what they mean. I would link "United States" no more than once in the entire article.

Design detail

  • "The dial in the "S" position – weapon safe, "1" – semi-automatic fire, "A" – fully automatic fire. - This is not a complete sentence; I'm not sure what's missing.


  • "FN P90 LV/LIR with empty magazine." - This caption, consisting solely of a sentence fragment, does not take a terminal period. Ditto for any captions that have no complete sentences in them.


  • "improving controllability" - Maybe just "control" rather than "controllability"?
  • "a maximum range of 1800 m (5905 ft)" - Comma separators in numbers of four digits or more?
  • "However, some are skeptical of the bullet's terminal performance, and it is a subject of debate among civilian shooters in the United States." - What part of the performance do they doubt? What is the debate about? Why is the debate only taking place in the United States?
  • "5.7x28mm projectiles are statistically safer than others" - The Manual of Style advises against starting a sentence with digits. You could stick a "The" in front of this sentence to solve the problem.


  • The direct external link from within the main text to the patent database is a no-no per WP:MOS#External links. Instead, this should be converted to an inline citation.

Sights and accessories


  • I'd consider merging the first three subsections in order to eliminate three subheads. Lots of short subsections create a choppy look, and the paragraph breaks are probably sufficient to prevent confusion. The remaining subhead would visually separate the first three types from the sporting types.
  • "The PS90 USG is also available with either olive-drab or black furniture." - I'm not sure what "furniture" refers to here. Would another phrase or word be better for making this clear to a general reader?


  • Spell out as well as abbreviate SWAT on first use?

External images

See also

  • I would not list anything here that is already linked to in the main text.


  • Book citations need the place of publication as well as the publisher. WorldCat is a good place to hunt for missing bibliographic details.
  • To pass FAC, the citation date formatting needs to be internally consistent. You can use m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd but not a mixture.
  • Single pages are abbreviated with "p." and multiple pages with "pp.".
  • Newspaper names like La Prensa should appear in italics.


  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that six of the citation urls are dead and that several others are possibly dead, that the article has two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets, and that the images lack alt text. Even if alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images, is not required at the moment at FAC, it's a good idea to add it. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)