Talk:Boeing AH-64 Apache/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:


 * The tagged sentences have been rewritten and wording has been clarified in many places. I don't see any short paragraphs remaining.  The Lead has been expanded.  Anything in particular left? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * I can't see the error which you make reference to. Is there any specific reference which has this problem, so I can understand exactly what you are referring towards. If you're referring to the odd way which newspapers falsely capitalise words that shouldn't be, usually titles are kept as similar to the original as possible as to not add confusion when trying to match them back to the newspaper's actual source; though obvious things like 100% capitalisation and capitalisation of the minor words is often lowered or completely dropped in order to comply with MOS:CAPS. I do keep some capitalisation in the references I enter into the articles I overhaul where it is appropriate, such as making a leading emphasis or otherwise complying with "Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms".Kyteto (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS:CAPS says that newspaper headlines should be reduced from all caps to start case, which is every word in the headline. Otherwise Composition titles govern titles of articles, books, etc. The quote to which you're referring is for usage in ordinary text, not titles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Believe I have fixed article titles to match the source's format or use title case for ones in all caps.  Let me know if I missed some. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the Composition titles section of MOS:CAPS again, specifically the second and subsequent sentences. The capitalization in the source is irrelevant; we properly capitalize the title even when it's not properly capitalized to begin with. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, OK. The formatting is getting worked.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Had to do a few that had been missed, but they're done now.
 * Had to do a few that had been missed, but they're done now.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The British Tail-rotor bit appeared to be somethin that emerged in the initial Westkand builds, which was later corrected. As the Westland Apache is fairly agreeably the most divergent and unique of the Apache variants from the standard design that emerged in 1984, it is conceivable that it was just a glitch in that particular model that was corrected, as they are now very commonly deploying with and using Hellfires. When these stories emerged, the aircraft were years away from service, the in-service models could be different in some way to avoid this issue, all we can tell is that it was a concern during the original builds of the WAH-64 but was retified.Kyteto (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The British Tail-rotor bit appeared to be somethin that emerged in the initial Westkand builds, which was later corrected. As the Westland Apache is fairly agreeably the most divergent and unique of the Apache variants from the standard design that emerged in 1984, it is conceivable that it was just a glitch in that particular model that was corrected, as they are now very commonly deploying with and using Hellfires. When these stories emerged, the aircraft were years away from service, the in-service models could be different in some way to avoid this issue, all we can tell is that it was a concern during the original builds of the WAH-64 but was retified.Kyteto (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The British Tail-rotor bit appeared to be somethin that emerged in the initial Westkand builds, which was later corrected. As the Westland Apache is fairly agreeably the most divergent and unique of the Apache variants from the standard design that emerged in 1984, it is conceivable that it was just a glitch in that particular model that was corrected, as they are now very commonly deploying with and using Hellfires. When these stories emerged, the aircraft were years away from service, the in-service models could be different in some way to avoid this issue, all we can tell is that it was a concern during the original builds of the WAH-64 but was retified.Kyteto (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Still puzzling since they didn't change tail rotor or tail boom designs AFAIK. Please add a summary of what you said above if you can source it (Wouldn't want you to commit OR ;-) )--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now this next bit is especially OR, but the thought occured to me that the original engines of the WAH-64 were pinched off the AW-101 Merlin, which not only has them slung above the cockpit rather than on the sides, but doesn't have to make allowences for the sideeffects missile launches. Thus the engine may have had to be reworked to not choke up or get influeneced by the heat burst, smoke or debris, which may have gotten picked up by the engine and slammed into the tail behind it. I got this idea from recalled that British Airways 747 flight that was almost destroyed by volcanic ash literally sandblasting the aircraft in midair, and compativiely 'flimsy' tail and an engine not filtered or adapted for the precise function could conceivably take-in and launch the waste at high velocities, a large peice of debris could be quite fatal. Just one idea (I don't work for Westland in any way, so I'm not getting info that way) and there are a few theories I can imagine up that would potentially explain why it was knacked in the preproduction models but not in the in-service WAHs. I'll just leave a note that the early problems have been resolved (this much we obviously know, as the British Apaches are now using their Hellfires with no such worries resurfacing. It would be far from the first time that an early sample product, even in military gear, had a kink yet to be worked out that sadly made it into the press despite knowing it wasn't intended as the final polished product. Kyteto (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The details of changes on the Westland WAH-64 really belongs at AgustaWestland Apache. A summary/overview will do for the main AH-64 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even noticed the article on the British variant. I agree that that is better dealt with there than here. And I'm in no hurry to close this one way or another; take as much time as you need.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what is next to do for this article, I think I have gotten all the Capitalisations this time. Kyteto (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it; you're done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)