Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne

AH-56 Cheyenne
User:Born2flie and myself rewrote this article in October and November. We would like to get an independent review from fresh sets of eyes. We want to improve it to A-class level. (A-class review will come later.) Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Woody
Overall, looking very good. I can't see that many issues with it. I saw a few things to note:
 * "Initial operating capability was planned for 1972 or possibly late 1970." Which was it? Why was there debate over the dates? Could that be expanded on?
 * "By the end of 1970, the Army funded work on TOW guidance..." Could this be rewritten to "By the end of 1970, the Army funded work on TOW missile guidance..." Non-mil people might not know what it is.
 * I think the see also section can be reduced, particularly the first three, which are already linked to in the text.
 * The pictures should generally be alternated per the WP:MOS. The third image should be left aligned per that logic, but be careful that it isn't under a section heading.
 * Prose is an issue. It doesn't flow in some places, and it is slightly confusing in some places. I suggest a copyeditor before you go for ACR and FAC.

Other than the prose, there are no major issues here. It looks very good. Well done, regards, Woody (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to clarify what I can. I believe they planned for Initial operating capability in 1972 then tried to move it up to 1970 by rushing it.  I thought TOW was explained before that.  Won't hurt to add missiles though. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked, it was linked above, but by the time they get to the bottom, they will most likely have forgotten! Regards, Woody (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that's all been addressed except for the prose.  We tried to improve that.  It may take some help from others for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Woody, can you point out the areas where you don't feel the prose flows and why you think that it doesn't (other than my writing :D ), so I can work on it? --Born2flie (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see the earlier note. I should be able to give detailed examples tommorrow. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Some examples. Generally a copyeditor who is not involved with the article works best and is usually recommended at FAC.
 * "The Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE) agreed with the changes but required that the proposed program be reviewed and a determination be made of any improvements that could be made to the UH-1B in the interim." This doesn't seem to flow.
 * "AMC made a recommendation based on the study to narrow the competition to compound helicopters, as they were the only rotary-wing aircraft currently capable of approaching CDC's stated objectives." All seems to be written in military speak and not that accessible to the layman reader.
 * "Each company assembled proposals for the design in three configurations based on the QMDO and a revised RFP, which itself was based on a draft QMR." Again, a bit full of military wording and acronyms. Could this be reworded to avoid the use of acronyms?
 * "The final QMR was released on 17 December 1965. which included several changes including adding an aerial rocket subsystem." You have a full stop (period) after the date, you also have unneccessary repetition of "included."
 * "In all, fourteen requirements were added to what was in Lockheed's proposal." This seems choppy, perhaps: "In all, fourteen requirements were added on top of those in the Lockheed proposal."
 * In general, you need to link a few of the more technical phrases such as "ground effect:" Ground effect in aircraft perhaps? Either they are linked, or you explain them more in the text. If we look at this sentence: "During early flight tests, a rotor instability was discovered when the aircraft was flying in ground effect." To understand this, you need an above average knowledge of aircraft operations, which needs to be remedied.


 * They are a few examples, it is by no means exhaustive. It should provide you with an indicator of some of the prose issues. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We tried to fix those examples and others.  Will keep at it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)