Talk:AgustaWestland AW101/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dolphin51 (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

Twenty-one images checked. Nineteen are entirely satisfactory. Two deserve my closer inspection - the one photographed at Lockheed Martin, and the shot of the blade tip.

The image of the Royal Danish Air Force AW101 has an inadequate caption. The helicopter is so far away its livery is not discernible so the caption should not focus solely on the name of the operator. It would be better if some comment were made about what the helicopter is doing. (The image description states that the helicopter is hoisting a person from the water. That would be better than the current caption.) Dolphin (t) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that "hoisting a person from the water" is correct - it looks much more like transferring someone to/from a boat. I've changed the pic to a much closer one. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The new image is much better at displaying the Royal Danish Air Force livery. The new image is properly licenced. Dolphin (t) 21:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link

At AgustaWestland AW101#Avionics there is a link to Redundancy which is a disambiguation page. Superior options are Redundancy (engineering) and Redundancy (information theory). Dolphin (t) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Kyteto on 25 January. Diff. Dolphin (t) 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

In any Good Article, the lead section should flow smoothly and be attractive to all would-be readers. I can suggest a couple of strategies to make the lead in this article more attractive:

• I have no doubt the AW101 was marketed as the EH101 prior to June 2007. However, this little item of trivia doesn't belong in the first sentence in the article, interfering with the flow of the sentence. I suggest it be demoted further down the page, preferably somewhere in Origins.

To be honest, I disagree that it is a note of trivia alone. Important/signficant major alternative designations are very commonly included in the leads of aircraft ariticles on Wikipedia, from the AV-8A designation used by the US when operating the Hawker Siddeley Harrier to the NA-73X designation initially held by the North American P-51 Mustang. It is also an important thing to have up there to show to a rushing-by reader that they haven't been accidentally booted to the wrong page when seeking the EH-101, that the AW-101 is the same aircraft as the EH-101 - This also lessens slap-dash 'helpful' new articles on the EH-101 being thrown up in the mistaken belief that we haven't covered it on Wikipedia. If nothing else, for 80-90%, the vast majority of the aircraft's life, it has gone under the EH-101 name - It seems strikingly important to get across in the lead that this is the same aircraft. On my interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME, it suggests that the most common/well known name should feature either in the article's title or in the lead: a majority of the sources I went through to build the Bibliography knew it by the EH-101 name, the AW-101 was lesser known and less frequently used. I think it is important to keep there, with some rewording. Kyteto (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your concern about new articles being thrown up about the EH101 by Users who believe it isn't covered has some validity. However, titles incorporating the name EH101 are now comprehensively covered by re-directs. For example, AgustaWestland EH101 re-directs to AgustaWestland AW101. Dolphin (t) 12:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Similarly, the fact that Agusta and Westland are now merged as AgustaWestland is presented in brackets. If it is important enough to be given a place in the first paragraph it should not be enclosed in bracket, disrupting the flow of the sentence. On the other hand, if the merger of the two joint-venture partners is not critical to the description of the AW101 I suggest it be demoted further down the page, possibly somewhere in Into production.

Blue-linking of countries is not done consistently. Italy and Japan are blue-linked (final sentence) but not any of the others. Dolphin (t) 07:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of the above issues have been fixed. Dolphin (t) 01:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox contains an excellent image of an RAF example. The caption says Royal Air Force Merlin HC3, 2008. Presumably, 2008 refers to the year of the photograph rather than to some sub-set of HC3. It is potentially confusing and probably unnecessary. Unless 2008 has some important significance, such as a colour scheme that was only used in 2008, I suggest 2008 be deleted. I also suggest Merlin should be italicized to show it is not part of the expression "Royal Air Force".

The infobox states that introduction of the AW101 occurred in 1999. In the lead section it states the type entered service in 2000. Readers will see this as a mis-match. Dolphin (t) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kyteto (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Development

Origins

This section begins by referring to Spring 1977. This is a distinctively north-American style of expression and may not be well understood by readers on other continents, especially as spring in one hemisphere is 6 months away from spring in the other. I suggest it either links to Spring (season) and is written without the leading capital or, better still, state the month in 1977 in which the event occurred. Dolphin (t) 02:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kyteto (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Early Canadian interest

It states that in 1987 the Canadian government was contemplating replacing the helicopters operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Elsewhere, Wikipedia says the RCAF ceased to exist by that name in 1968. Should these ageing helicopters be described as belonging to the Canadian Armed Forces or something similar?

In the second para, the expression in light of which is used. I suggest this should be replaced by and. Dolphin (t) 03:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That change would put two ands in the same sentence. Isn't there some sort of principle to avoid that as much as possible? Kyteto (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Having two ands in this sentence wouldn't have been a problem. However, I now think so is a better replacement for in light of which. I have made the change. See diff. Dolphin (t) 01:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Into production

It explains that Britain and Italy placed orders. Year of commencement of deliveries to the RAF and RN are specified, but no comment is made about commencement of deliveries to the Italian navy. If this information is available it would be good to include it. Also, it would be good to reveal how many of the 22 were for the RAF and how many for the RN.

The which is awkward in "which have accumulated a combined total of 170,000 flying hours." What do you think of "and these have accumulated ..." in this sentence? Dolphin (t) 05:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kyteto (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Design

Propulsion

What do you think of the following alternative syntax for the opening sentence?

The version of the AW101 used by the UK, Japan, Denmark and Portugal is powered by three ... turboshaft engines. The version used by Italy, Canada and Japan is powered by three ... turboshaft engines.

Note that Japan apparently has both engine types. If this is correct, a little clarification of why Japan has both types would be good.

To be honest, I don't know why Japan has both types of engine, I cannot elaborate upon why without knowing why, at this point. Kyteto (talk) 13

59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The two engine types are the RTM322 and the CT7 would suggest the removal of the specific "-6". To specify the CT7-6 is an inconsistent level of detail, and I believe that the CT7-8E is now available for the AW101. Scott belzonitt (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence refers to other helicopters such as the WAH-64 and the NH90. The reader doesn’t know what the other helicopters are, and giving two examples doesn’t help. I suggest deleting the expression other helicopters such as or, alternatively, listing all the others.

I believe all helicopters with the engine have been listed; if I removed other helicopters such as, readers might not know that the others are helicopters to begin with, a small shaft-turbine could be used in other vehicles, in my understanding. Kyteto (talk) 13

59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It says Improved BERP IV rotors have since been developed, increasing MTOW. Are these BERP IV rotors installed on the AW101 or on the Lynx? The sentence should clarify which helicopter type has benefited from the increase in MTOW.

I've made it clear the increased MTOW is referring to the AW101. I'm not sure if the Lynx has been outfitted with the IV or not, maybe it is something specialised for the heavier helicopter only. Kyteto (talk) 13

59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The final para begins by saying each engine has a self-sealing fuel tank. It ends by saying self-sealing fuel tanks can be installed on request. Readers will quickly spot this mis-match.

The expression as can airborne refuelling has been tacked onto the end of an otherwise respectable sentence. Capability for airborne refuelling of a helicopter is most significant and this information deserves a sentence of its own. Dolphin (t) 06:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kyteto (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Armaments and defensive systems

This section refers to British AW101s and Royal Navy Merlins. Is there any difference between an AW101 and a Merlin? If not, consistent terminology should be used throughout.

There are some weapons fittings, and avionics equipments unique to the AW101s operated under the name Merlin that as yet have not appeared on the AW101s not being referred to by the name of Merlin. Kyteto (talk) 14

09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The acronym GPMG is introduced. If it isn’t used elsewhere in the article I suggest it is redundant and should be removed.

The machine guns are described as pointing out of door and window apertures. I suggest a more encyclopedic expression would be directed out of or aimed out of. Dolphin (t) 07:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kyteto (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead contains an explanation that Merlin is in common useage for examples in service with the British, Danish and Portuguese militaries. This is a satisfactory solution. Dolphin (t) 01:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Avionics

The second para says the Mk1 and Mk3 don’t rely on pitot tube instrumentation for measuring altitude. It isn't possible to use pitot pressure to measure altitude.

If I'm reading Pitot-static system right, pitot tubes can be used for reading altitude. Scientificially it makes sense that they can, as air pressure gets lower at greater altitudes, which should generate a corresponding change in pitot readings. I've changed the wording regardless, it turns out the system may be replacing pitot readings in altitude and more. Kyteto (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Altimeters operate on static pressure which is supplied from static ports. Airspeed indicators operate on both static pressure and pitot pressure which is supplied from a pitot tube. The Doppler Velocity System provides information about airspeed, not altitude. Your fix is satisfactory. Dolphin (t) 01:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Doppler Velocity System does not measure airspeed, and therefore does not remove the reliance on a conventional pitot system. I suggest that the statement is removed. The AW101 has a 3 pitot system for its airspeed measurements. The DVS, when fitted, provides an indication of groundspeed, or more accurately surface relative velocity. It is linked to the AFCS for stabilised hovers, particularly over water. Scott belzonitt (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference to voice recorders should link to Cockpit voice recorder.

There is a mixture of AW101 and Royal Navy Merlin.

Yes, but that cannot be helped. Both AW101's-referred-to-as-Merlins and AW101's-not-referred-to-as-Merlins have been using the Blue Kestrel radar, thus it is logical to use the common AW101 name. However, only AW101's-referred-to-as-Merlins but not AW101's-not-referred-to-as-Merlins are in the Royal Navy refurbishment/upgrade program, thus it is only referred to by the given name of Merlin in that instance. Kyteto (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The final sentence (Sonobuoys are used ...) contains a mixture of present and past tense. It needs a little re-working. Dolphin (t) 07:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Kyteto (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have further re-worked the sentence about sonobuoys. I assumed this anti-submarine system is only installed in Royal Navy Merlins. If this is incorrect, please rectify.

There is now a sentence about Danish EH101s sandwiched between two sentences about Royal Navy Merlins. It might me more appropriate to move the sentence about Danish EH101s to the end of the paragraph. Dolphin (t) 02:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Operational history

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

This section ends with and work in coordination with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. I guess this information is associated with the transport/support role for Antarctic missions. What do you think of the following alternative syntax?

The MCH-101 and CH101 will replace the MH-53E (S-80-M-1) in the AMCM role. In the transport/support role for Antarctic missions they will replace the Sikorsky S-61 and work in coordination with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

Dolphin (t) 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Implimented Kyteto (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Variants

The information about the different variants is generally well supported by in-line citations. The information about models 500 - 516 is unsourced. It is likely one of the existing citations can be used to support these models. Dolphin (t) 02:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kyteto (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable accidents and incidents

Two of the accidents occurred to AW101 of the British Royal Navy. Elsewhere in the article, Royal Navy is not qualified by the word British. I suggest it is also unnecessary in this section. Dolphin (t) 02:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kyteto (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

References

The supply of in-line citations and the bibliography are very comprehensive. Their accuracy and presentation are of very high quality and a credit to all those who contributed.

I randomly selected one item on which to make a check of verifiability. I selected the statement that the cargo hook can carry an external load of 5,440 kg. The cited source is Richard Scott's article Sea Change. I have been unable to find any mention by Scott of an external load of 5,440 kg. Can you clarify where I need to look to find mention of that load?

Citation No. 61 - the Royal Navy publication Naval Air Squadrons now appears to be a dead link. Dolphin (t) 06:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This should be sufficiently resolved now, on both issues. Kyteto (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Residue

Thanks for all that good work. There are now only two issues outstanding:

1. Under Into production above, I suggested it would be good if some information could be added about commencement of deliveries to Italy. If that information isn't available the article can still go to GA but if it is available it would be good to include it.
2. Under Propulsion above, I suggested some alternative syntax for the sentence The military version of the AW101 is powered by ... ...
   

When these two issues are resolved I think the article is ready for GA. Dolphin (t) 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Item 2 above has been fixed. Dolphin (t) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Prose: Good
2. Style: Complies
3. Verifiable: Complies via citations and references
4. Broad: Sufficiently broad coverage of a very specialised topic
5. Focused Very focused
6. NPOV: Complies
7. Stable: Stable
8. Images: Checked
9. Overall: Pass
   

Dolphin (t) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.