Talk:Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Bushranger (talk · contribs) 01:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see this article getting some attention. The Cheyenne has always been one of my favourite choppers; it's a shame it never got a fair shake.

Anyway, let's have a look here:

• Images are suitable and are suitably licensed on Commons.
• Article meets MoS for format.
• References are reliable, and all inline citations in the article text are appropraiately located...except that the Cheyenne's being ineligible for helicopter speed records is not cited.
• I'd also like to see inline citations on the footnotes ("notes" section), if possible.
• Article looks good with regards to CP/CV and V/N/RS.
• And it appropriately covers the topic without unneeded diversions.
• It's also neutral and stable.
• Grammar/wordsmithing quibbles:

Lede

• Does "single-engine" need to appear in the lede where it does? It's not as much of an issue for choppers as it is for fixed-wing aircraft and it might help tighten things just a bit. Suggest removing it from where it is now and later changing wording to "The Cheyenne was powered by a single GE T64..."; also, suggest wikilinking turboshaft here.
• Not sure about the AAFSS being in italics; it looks odd to my eye. Also, perhaps this (the AAFSS bit) should be linked to, even if it's a redlink? It was no doubt a notable program.
• Suggest removing the specific speed from the lede and saying instead "to provide a high-speed dash capability"; this can be explained later in the article.
• "...to develop 10 prototypes..."; suggest "...to construct ten prototypes..."
• "Cheyenne development continued..."; suggest "Development of the Cheyenne continued..."

Development

• "...then Secretary of Defense McNamara..." - should use Strange's first name too here I think.
• "The results of the board envisioned..."; suggest "The reccomendation of the board was for..."
• The wikilink for the Bell D-255 should probably point to Bell 207 Sioux Scout.
• Suggest splitting the wikilink for the SS-10 to links to the missile and anti-tank missile; also the SS-10 should probably use the MGM-21 designation in the text, as that's what the Army called it.
• Wikilink Secretary of the Army
• Does "Program Manager's office" need the caps?
• "...continue using UH-1B aircraft..." suggest "...continue using the armed UH-1B..."
• ...the Army announced Lockheed as the winner of the AAFSS program selection", would "the Army announced that Lockheed had been selected to fulfill the AAFSS requrement" work better?
• "...approved funds for pre-production activities..."; this looks very awkward, suggest "...approved pre-production funding...

Every source I have just calls the missile SS-10. So I think it is fine as is. The link was split to SS.10 and anti-tank missile though. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Design

• "...compound helicopter design included..."; suggest "...design was that of a compound helicopter, including..."
• "...relieved the aerodynamic requirements..."; strongly suggest "...reduced the aerodynamic loading..."
• "The nose turret had a +/- 100° of rotation from centerline..."; suggest "The nose turret could rotate +/- 100° from the centerline of the aircraft..."
• "The wing hardpoints could be used to carry..."; suggest "The wing hardpoints were plumbed to allow the carriage of..."

Operational history

• "...hit the fuselage and killed the pilot."; suggest "...hit the fuselage, causing a crash that killed the pilot."
• Wikilink half-P hop - should have an article on this. Also suggest, but don't require, a citation after the definition of half-P hop (I presume the cite at the end of the paragraph covers it).
• "...causing the helicopter to breakup and be destroyed."; suggest "...causing the destruction of the aircraft".
• Wikilink ejection seat.
• "By the end of 1970, the Army funded..."; suggest "Torwards the end of 1970, the Army funded..."
• ...the prototype #9 received...", not sure "the" is needed here?
• Was it the Navy or Marine Corps proposing the Harrier? Pretty sure it should say Marine Corps here. Same later with the "limited procurement" line; the Navy has never flown Harriers, only the Marines (of course, the Navy runs the Marines, so this may be a technicality).
• ...and demonstrated improved maneuverability..."; suggest ", in addition to demonstrating improved maneuverability..."
• "...was unsuccessful, and the firm did not develop another helicopter..."; suggest "...was unsuccessful; with the failure of the project, the Cheyenne was the last helicopter to be developed by Lockheed."

Lockheed only built 2 helicopter types, including the AH-56. The wording needs to not imply several or many types. Also, half-P was explained some elsewhere. Maybe a note for that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for the large number of quibbles above, I wasn't expecting them to run that long. Until those are resolved (through changing or not), I'm placing this  On hold. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Uh, you just started this like a couple hours ago. Why not give the editors a day or two of a chance before putting it on hold? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Err... "on hold" is what you do to give a chance? You can either "pass", "fail", or "put on hold" while edits are made. And since this isn't "pass" (yet) or "fail" (hardly)... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Believe it or not I have gone through like a dozen of these. Most reviewers in those cases let it stay "in review" until the reviewer made the final call, or put on hold if more time is needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Huh, I didn't know that - my experience on having mine reviewed was that if work was needed, it was always on hold. Guess ya learn something new every day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I believe a couple reviewers have put it "on hold" after doing the initial review as you did. It is all good in the end... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nice work! The last quibble was the speed record ineligibility needing referencing, but I found a reference quoting the FAI sporting code on the definition of a helicopter, and added it. So I believe this can now be called a ✓ Pass. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed review. If you or anybody else has further suggestions, please post them on the AH-56 talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)