Talk:Chicken gun/GA1

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

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

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

Comments
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."


 * 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.
 * ✅ 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! ✅ :)


 * 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".




 * Canadian - those are air guns ("pneumatic"), please say so.




 * AEDC Ballistic Range S-3: again, better say it's an air gun.




 * 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".




 * 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".




 * Urban legend:


 * Well it's great fun, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedic. It should probably go.


 * 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.


 * Blade off testing might be worth adding to the list.


 * 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 ✅


 * 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
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)