Talk:Chicken gun/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Well what a great subject. It's more than adequately cited, and narrated accurately with a quiet engineering pleasure that's a joy to read. I have only the smallest of comments.

Lead
  • "owing to their relative abundance." Perhaps "owing to their ready availability."
 Done
Context
  • I think the article needs a short (cited) Context section to explain what the risk of bird strike is, why it's serious (fast plane windshield hits bird at high velocity, fan/compressor blades struck at non-designed angles etc.), and what (other) counter-measures are available but not totally effective, e.g. falconry at airfields. Hence chicken guns.
 Done with a couple of sentences moved up from the "use in certification" section to prevent redundancy.
Great. Perhaps also mention that a shattered windshield causes decompression?
Only at altitudes above ~ 8,000 ft, and most bird strikes occur below this height. However given the potential consequences of such a decompression are catastrophic, it's probably worth a mention!  Done :)
History
  • "... gun ... cannon ... device ...": any particular reason for the variation?
Not that I can remember, I imagine it's just inattentiveness on my part when working from the various sources! Done except for one mention in the lede where I think 'device' works better, although if you disagree I shan't fight you over it! :)
  • What was the propellant for the Westinghouse gun, and how was it organised - it seems that different charges were provided to obtain different muzzle velocities?
Compressed air, as with the others, surprisingly enough. It was the need for a quick-release valve capable of holding back immense pressures that led the CAA to the Westinghouse Company in the first place. Of course, I should have added this into the article, which I have now done!
  • "... the glass used ... were extremely vulnerable": either "the glass panels ... were" or "the glass ... was".
 Done
  • Canadian - those are air guns ("pneumatic"), please say so.
 Done
  • AEDC Ballistic Range S-3: again, better say it's an air gun.
 Done
Use in aircraft certification
  • Perhaps it would be helpful to the general reader to provide a brief gloss of "uncontained failure", something like "where rotating parts leave the engine casing".
 Done
Notable uses
  • ". As a result the cockpit of the 757, and that of the 767, which shared the same design, to be reinforced." Something missing - e.g. "had to be reinforced".
 Done
Urban legend
  • Well it's great fun, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedic. It should probably go.
minus Removed I feared as much!
See also
  • I guess a case can be made for linking Spud gun here, but since it's only a toy with tiny pieces of potato, perhaps it's not ideal here.
 Done
References
  • The refs I spot-checked were fine. All are in suitable templates.
Images
  • Both are properly licensed on Commons, and both are appropriate.
  • The lead image could be shown a little larger, e.g. |upright=1.35.
  • Maybe the lead image caption should say it's CAA/Westinghouse.
  • An approximate date (or range of dates) would be useful for the Canadian image.
All  Done
Categories
  • Ok. I'm a bit surprised there's no more specific category to choose from than "Aerospace engineering"; testing is a major subject. "Scope for further work" (after the GA), as they say in research.
I agree, perhaps I should have a look at creating some...

Summary[edit]

There's very little wrong with this article, and I look forward to seeing it as a GA soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I'm glad you liked the article! Various tweaks made in response to your review, see above. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a GA. I hope you'll take the time to pick an article to review from the ever-growing GAN list. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]