Talk:Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne/GA1

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

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 . - 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 ✅. - 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)