Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/AH-56 Cheyenne

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.

AH-56 Cheyenne[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Fnlayson (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it is a quality article and meets the requirements. Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an excellent article which easily meets the criteria. I have some suggestions for further development you may wish to consider:
- If possible, more images would be valuable
- "During early flight tests, a rotor instability was discovered when the aircraft was flying in ground effect" is a bit technical and could be converted into plainer language (eg, what's 'ground effect?').
- How does the AH-1 Cobra fit into this story? I was a bit surprised that it wasn't mentioned given that it was the Army's main attack helicopter at the time the Cheyenne was being developed. Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to reword about that. The AH-1 Cobra does not really fit into the story. The AH-1 was originally intended as an interim gunship for jungle fighting in Vietnam. It was lightly armed then and not intended for the anti-armor role that the AH-56 was designed for. Things changed though. By the time the AH-56 program was finally ended in 1972, the US Army put TOW missiles on Cobras (AH-1Q) for use against tanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is a well written, cited, illustrated and comprehensive article. There are no dab links and the external links all check out with the Featured article tools. The images, however, are missing alt text. Can this please be added in per WP:ALT? Assuming that that is added in, I support this article for A class. Cheers and well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if Alt text was required here. Describing a visual in words is not something I'm good at. But I made an attempt at the Alt text. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure either, but it seems to come up at most A class reviews. The alt text would probably need to be improved a bit if you want to take this article to FAC, however, I think it is okay for A class. (I also, however, have problems with writing good alt text, so I know what you mean when you say you have difficulty describing a visual in words.) Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support.

It needs a copy-edit. Some places are confusing or badly worded and should be looked over by someone else. I've fixed at least one example, another particularly bad one is below.
"The Army perceived Lockheed's design as less expensive, able to be available earlier, and that it would have less technical risk than Sikorsky's Rotorprop." Rephrase please.

Otherwise, however, it looks good. Get that fixed and it'll be great for A-class. – Joe N 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support

Great article! Nothing major, just a few comments to look at before I support it.

I'm not sure what the standard intro procedure is, but I feel like the last 2 paragraphs of the intro could be moved to the development section, before the background, as they seem to provide a nice summary of the development program, but more than is needed in the intro. If you move those two paragraphs down, you could add a one-liner saying the program was canceled to the intro.
A copy edit things... in Background: "from existing aircraft whose design purpose was other than carrying weapons for aerial employment." is really rough. Try something like "derivatives of helicoptors designed for other purposes". You've already established this is a combat helicoptor.
Need more wikilinks (red links are fine imo): UH-1A, D-255, D-262,
Do we know why the first flight was with the second prototype? (Flight Testing)
What did the AAH program result in? The AH-64? That should be mentioned, if only in passing, there at the end of the development section.
What are the off-axis weapons? (maybe just redifine that as the "wing mounted weapons" or whatever, a lay person may not get it) -SidewinderX (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out. I beleive the Lead meets WP:LEAD guidelines in summarizing the entire article and not being too long. The last 2 paragraphs there can be shortened some and possibly be recombined. Shortening them too much though would mean glossing over things like the complicated end of the program. I addressed everything else you mentioned. Except links for the D-255 and D-262 proposed designs are not warranted as those are explained about as well in this article as separate article(s) could. Let me know if I missed something or you see something else. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the lead is fine with me. The fixes look fine to me. Good job! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.