Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Timothytyy (talk · contribs) 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your nomination. After reviewing the article, I believe that the article is almost ready to be a good article. However, some places in the article are quite wordy and not reader-friendly. My suggestion is to shorten the lead section a little bit and remove unnecessary information in the background section. If you finished shortening the article, please ping me and I will review it as soon as possible. Thank you!

Timothytyy, I've shorten the lead to make it more accessible for readers, but I'm not sure what to cut in the background section. It's been a while since I've edited the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane Thank you for your cleanup in the lead section! For the background, I meant that there are already "Further information" articles, so the history need not be too long and detailed. For example, "To deliver such payload, the Falcon XX would have been as tall as the Saturn V and used six Merlin 2 engines." Although this piece of information is useful, it is not quite helpful for readers to understand the background of Starship. You should think about, "What do readers hope to learn about the background of Starship?" So, you can remove useless/not quite useful information and try to make the background sound more generic. This works too for the lead and other sections too. After all, this is not an article about the evolution of Starship. Thank you! Timothytyy (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hard agree with this. I'm going to cut the cruft now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Timothytyy, I've trimmed some sections and making sure that the content is evergreen. I also added new information about Booster 7's static fire while making sure the content does not run afoul at WP:RECENTISM. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane Thank you for your cleanup of the article! I will mark this GAN as ✓ Pass. Keep up your good work! Timothytyy (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Timothytyy Wait what? No, you cannot just pass a GAN like that. We need to review all of the criteria for good article before doing so. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane As I said before ("I believe that the article is almost ready to be a good article"), I believe that all the other criteria are met. If you believe that some criteria is not met, you can inform me. Anyways, please inform me if you want me to review it again. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Timothytyy The article is certainly not perfect, and I have a feeling that the article's prose is not up to standard. But you - as an outsider - can spot a lot more flaws than I can. By rushing GA review, you've lost an opportunity to make the article better and make it well-prepared for featured article candidacy. As a person that has waited 4 months for a review and yearned more than a year for the article to become a featured article, please make the GAN count by actually reviewing the article to the best of our abilities. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I don't know if the reason you didn't reply is because I forgot to ping you or other reasons, but I am here to seek your comments. I have listed every guideline below. Sorry for rushing to assess it, but you should keep in mind that nomination discussions do not always need to be super long. If you compare SpaceX Starship to other GAs, you would find out that this article is much better than them. Please don't think that I reviewed this without any close inspection or guideline-reviewing. Therefore, I would still like to nominate this as GA as soon as possible. I would even dare to say it is not far from reaching FA if a little bit more things are improved (although I find nothing in the current revision that needs significant improvement).

Anyway, please reply me within 36 hours, or else I will review this GA nomination. If you insist that there are problems, you can list them out. I repeat: In my opinion, after your fixes, I believe that the article can definitely pass the GA guidelines. Thank you for your cooperation! Timothytyy (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that I've thought you haven't actually look at the article in great detail. I think that I've worried that FAC reviewers will point to this GA and say that this review is not adequate enough and I should've make another GAN for this. Lots of my previous FAC has gone this way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Timothytyy courtesy ping CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are not satisfied, then I will say

1.Well-written after your cleanup; I am a Starship fan and I have always been reading the page, why wouldn't I know the prose? It is one of the most important launch vehicle-related article, so lots of editors are helping out in the page. No articles are flawless, but I can't spot anything not well-written, as I would have corrected that myself before.

2.Verifiable: I believe there are not much problems with sources as I checked them before I reviewed the nomination.

3.Broad in its coverage:

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; no problem at all

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail; you corrected it already

4.Neutral: Well done in whole article.

5.Stable: Are there an edit wars or vandalism?

6.Media: Quite a lot and adequate.

Sorry for making you unsatisfied, but I really believe that it is ready. I am not an editor who came across this article just today! Timothytyy (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should have a second opinion about this GA. Pinging @Berrely as the GAR initiator and @Urve as the second GAN reviewer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I can't give this a close read-over, too many articles to write about biblical apocrypha ;) This is the version I'm reading.
• Criterion 2 (verifiable, with no OR): Unless I'm missing something, "In January 2020, the company bought two drilling rigs for $3.5 million from Valaris plc each during Valaris's bankruptcy proceedings, with plans to repurpose them as offshore spaceports" is still wrong (pointed this out before?) - source says "sold ... in August 2020 when Valaris filed for bankruptcy ... buyer was SpaceX." similarly, this source (June 2022) can't support an "as of 9 December 2022" statement. I trust that you have gone through and the source-text integrity issues from before, aside from a couple of these minor points that deal with dates.
• Criterion 1 (well-written): "potential abuse for eviction" - could just say the potential threat of eviction, abuse is an odd word. do we have a source for Starship being a super heavy-life launch vehicle? it probably is, but note e saying it meets the definition is uncomfortably close to synthesis, and we could avoid the awkward citation to an encyclopedia. note d is unnecessary. "each during Valaris's bankruptcy proceedings" is ambiguous, since they were sold together(?), could just say "both sold together".
• regarding FAC (not GAN), will mention that there is a mix of {{rp}} (eg, The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration) and in-{{cite book}} pages (eg, Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future). source otherwise seem fairly consistent and reliable but didn't check all. Criterion 6 (illustration): alt text for images seems well-written and descriptive; can videos carry alt text? if so, suggest adding.
• Criterion 3–5 seem OK at a glance. There's always the possibility of non-neutral wording, but can't see any immediately; suggest going over once more and seeing whether any words you use have any promotional or positive connotation, and see whether that connotation is reflected in the source.
• I imagine, but can't promise, that this article meets the GA criteria. The criteria are not exceptionally high. (That's not an insult to the article, to be clear! - the GA criteria are just not highly restrictive.) Unless there's something major I'm missing, I would not support this going to GAR, and think its promotion would be within the range of reasonable editor discretion. That's my way of saying that I would promote (modulo major errors or omissions).
• I understand you would also like an in-depth review for a future featured article candidacy, but I think FAC is a horrible, demoralizing fiefdom with inconsistent desires, impossible demands, and made-up precedents nowhere reflected in the criteria; I have no desire to play into that game, so won't further comment beyond the GA criteria. Best of luck, good work, and congratulations on getting the article in much better shape. Urve (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I've addressed all of your concerns. Though I've check all of the article sources, it was a few months ago, so I think it is worth it to have at least a spot-check on sources before passing the GAN. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Timothytyy would you like to do a spot-check with me as part of GAN review? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @CactiStaccingCrane So what do you want me to do? I'd be happy to help. Timothytyy (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Timothytyy, a spot check means checking a sample of sources and making sure that the text really does reflect what the sources said. Usually, people will do about 5-15 sources to spot check an article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @CactiStaccingCrane OK, I'll check it now. Timothytyy (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @CactiStaccingCrane I checked 15 of the sources. Most were good, but I don't think source 91 is useful for the info in the paragraph. Timothytyy (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Timothytyy,  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Timothytyy and @Ovinus, do you feel comfortable passing the review now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps once I finish my copyedit, which I hope has been helpful. In the process, I've also done a dozen spotchecks or so, which have all checked out. That said, I think I'm a bit too involved to pass it myself. Timothytyy's opinion (or even a third opinion) would be helpful. Ovinus (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus

Some content comments as I've gone through. Ovinus (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• "belly-flop maneuver" is used but not defined
  • It is defined but at the mission profile section. Removed mention of the maneuver as it is unnecessary jargon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. It's used one more time later, though, again without definition. Ovinus (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• "In February 2022, after stacking Ship 20 on top of Booster 4 using mechanical arms" sentence appears incomplete
  • Seems to be removed from earlier edits. Added back info. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• "These properties make the engine highly practical, efficient and long-lasting" – too flowery, but I can't think of a way to reword. Ideally it should be attributed in-text to a reasonably neutral source
  • Removed, as it can be inferred from the statistics. The engine as it currently stands is still not super practical and long-lasting. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• "The robots' welds are later inspected with an X-ray machine" – Wondering about the relevance. It's intriguing, but I don't have the expertise to know whether this is nonstandard practice with robot-constructed welds (or indeed, if that's an unusual process itself). Ovinus (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  I guess it is a pretty minor detail, so I removed it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Any reason to use {{abbr}} for HLS rather than spelling it out once? I think there's space enough. Ovinus (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with your reasoning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• "may make future space probes more experimental" – I don't understand what this means; maybe you mean more advanced? Or maybe more experimental because the cost of launch is lowered, so the cost of craft failure is lessened and iterative improvements are more financially feasible? Ovinus (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  removed as it is not mentioned in the source CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• "the rocket with commodities" – what is a "commodity" Ovinus (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  changed to propellant CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• "a lightning rod on top" – relevant? Ovinus (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think that it does, since most launch tower does not have one but instead use separate launch towers CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• "is used to move the arms side by side" – I'm not sure whether you mean "side to side" or "arms individually", etc.; please clarify Ovinus (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  changed to horizontally CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's it for now. Ovinus (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I agree with Ovinus' (minor) wording corrections, which don't seem disrupting the content flow. Anyway, I would like to pass this, but also as per Ovinus, I think I'm a bit too involved to pass it myself. It would be excellent if a third person can spend some time to review this. Timothytyy (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Timothytyy the whole situation is kinda awkward; on the one hand I want this article to pass the GAN quickly for it to be grilled at the FAC, but on the other hand, they can just point to the poor GAN review and not reviewing the article itself. I don't know what to do now... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane the best thing to do now is find a third person to review it (thoroughly), then there is no way that anyone will object this review, because I believe this article is already ready for being a GA. Timothytyy (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In-depth review

I'm willing to conduct a more in-depth review. So, some points on content rather than just wording. But I disagree with Timothytyy that the article should be passed at this point. Ovinus (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• More critiques are needed, in particular about the feasibility and cost. The best place for that would probably be the "Reception" section, but it should also be integrated when possible. How much do space experts, particularly NASA authorities, believe this thing is gonna work? How much do they agree with SpaceX's figures on the ultimate cost? We can't just parrot what the company says.

  Hard agree. @CactiStaccingCrane Timothytyy (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  • This is a very interesting topic to talk about and is in a very active area of research in space economics. Good catch; I need to do more research on this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• Also add some inline quoted opinions for the "Some are skeptical of the date" part.
  • It seems to be WP:OR for me, so I split that last paragraph and integrate the content to the rest of the vehicle. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• In the "Space colonization" section, we need a sentence or two about criticisms of the "colonization of Mars" shtick.
  • I do agree, though the criticism should be about SpaceX's plan and not about colonization of Mars in general. A good criticism is that the plan is pretty unrealistic due to XYZ tech that hasn't been worked on yet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)`

  Agree. Timothytyy (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• We need more criticism of SpaceX's encroachment on Boca Chica. The WSJ piece is nice, but also see ones like [1], which criticize the environmental impact. This should go in Reception and/or integrated with the rest of the article.
  • Great source that you've found. I'm currently reading the article and see if there's anything that I can add to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• "the Federal Aviation Administration performed a two-month investigation of the incident" What was the upshot of the investigation?
• Given the Raptor engine has its own article, what do you think about trimming that section to two paragraphs? Much of the content can be moved to the subarticle.
  • I disagree, as the rocket engines are usually designed specifically for one rocket, unlike airplane engines. Similar articles such as the Space Shuttle, N1 (rocket) and Long March 5 and explains its engine in great detail. I also want to keep the explanation of the full-flow staged combustion cycle as the Raptor engine is the only rocket engine in production that uses this combustion cycle. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• "A performance inside Starship.jpg" is too promotional, please remove
  • Agree and removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And some nitpicks:

• "issues identified in the final assessment" – I'm sorry if I messed up the meaning as I think I tweaked this sentence, but which assessment is being referred to?
  • Clarified in the sentence as the environmental assessment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• Is the "Mechzilla" name relevant?
  • Removed. The name is used in the inner circles of the launch vehicle's fans, but it is not a name of notable significance (as in NASA has used the name). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Spotchecks

Making a separate section for these. PMC says there have been source–text integrity issues, so I will be complete here. Checks are relative to Special:Diff/1129175118.

I'm rather concerned about all the discrepancies I've seen so far. Would you like time to go through the sources yourself before I go through the remaining references? Ovinus (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Just checking in case you missed this. Ovinus (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, since it's been some time I'll mark this one as failed; sorry. In a future review these source–text issues should be addressed. Ovinus (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• [1]: Good, except doesn't say anything about "super heavy-lift launch vehicle" as used in the lead, which I assume is elsewhere.
• [2]: Good, except it doesn't say "high-capacity" as far as I can see
  • Seems to be a paraphrase of "heavy-lift launch vehicle", fixed
• [3, 4, 5]: Good
• [6]: Doesn't seem to check out? The company doesn't seem to have said much definitive.
  • I used [7] instead to tag the year 2015.
• [7]:
• [8]: (Keep in mind I'm using the diff above. It appears the numbering has changed due to the source replacement you just performed.) The engine was not fired for the first time on this date; rather, the success was announced. Also, Musk's tweet appears to date to the 25th. I would only keep the month + year, and clarify.
• [9]: "carbon composite" not found in source. Source claims 550 tons to orbit if landing the thing isn't required; I'd keep 300 tons and clarify that that figure is in the case of re-landing. I also fail to see where the article discusses the "three variants".
• [10]: Fine
• [11]: "68th International Astronautical Congress" detail not present; in fact, it appears to be a tweet where Musk announced the name change. Second usage is fine.
• [12]: Fine. Please link spaceport
• [13, 14]: Fine
• [15]: Source calls it "fins" instead of "flaps", so please use these terms if accurate. "Crucial funding" is not really found in the source, only that the sum was significant. So please adjust that or find another source.
• [16]: Fine
• [17]: I fail to see where the six Raptor engines (and their classification into vacuum- and sea-level-optimized variants) are discussed, or the "pins" (it only says they are "mechanically attached")
• [18]: Source does not say any static fire tests were performed (afait)
• [19]: Fine
• [20]: I fail to see where the source gives the date of 2023 for the first test.
• [21]:
• [22]:
• [23]:
• [24]:
• [25]:
• [26]:
• [27]:
• [28]:
• [29]:
• [30]:
• [31]:
• [32]:
• [33]:
• [34]:
• [35]:
• [36]:
• [37]:
• [38]:
• [39]:
• [40]:
• [41]:
• [42]:
• [43]:
• [44]:
• [45]:
• [46]:
• [47]:
• [48]:
• [49]:
• [50]:
• [51]:
• [52]:
• [53]:
• [54]:
• [55]:
• [56]:
• [57]:
• [58]:
• [59]:
• [60]:
• [61]:
• [62]:
• [63]:
• [64]:
• [65]:
• [66]:
• [67]:
• [68]:
• [69]:
• [70]:
• [71]:
• [72]:
• [73]:
• [74]:
• [75]:
• [76]:
• [77]:
• [78]:
• [79]:
• [80]:
• [81]:
• [82]:
• [83]:
• [84]:
• [85]:
• [86]:
• [87]:
• [88]:
• [89]:
• [90]:
• [91]:
• [92]:
• [93]:
• [94]:
• [95]:
• [96]:
• [97]:
• [98]:
• [99]:
• [100]:
• [101]:
• [102]:
• [103]:
• [104]:
• [105]:
• [106]:
• [107]:
• [108]:
• [109]:
• [110]:
• [111]:
• [112]:
• [113]:
• [114]:
• [115]:
• [116]:
• [117]:
• [118]:
• [119]:
• [120]:
• [121]:
• [122]:
• [123]:
• [124]:
• [125]:
• [126]:
• [127]:
• [128]:
• [129]:
• [130]:
• [131]:
• [132]:

Timothy

(I'd like to keep our checks separate, so I put yours down here. Hope that's okay. Ovinus (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC))

• Ovinus, can you help me check 127-129? Thanks a lot! Timothytyy (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• [122]: Ok, but in the source I only found "potentially followed by pads at LC-49" and "SpaceX and NASA currently working on assessing the potential of a site at LC-49 to the north of Complex 39", nothing else. Also it is not mentioned that 49 is north to 39A, but not 39B or 39C.
• [123-124]: OK
• [125]: Ok, but I just noticed that this source is actually more suitable than source 126 at that place.
• [126]: "nearly identical" not seen in source
• [127]: Forbidden 403
• [128]: Front part OK, can't check the back
• [129]: (Can't check, not a subscriber of the New York Times)
• [130]: Except "SpaceX currently launches its Falcon 9 rockets from a leased launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.", no "Falcon 9" is mentioned in the article, so "originally planned to launch Falcon rockets" is completely unsourced. Better source needed(or change wordings).
• [131]: Good.
• [132]: Source only says "closes the road to the beach" instead of closing the beach and the road. Suggestion: change wordings.
  • Done

Comment: Yeah the thing is good as I tried to say when I reviewed it before - like the new info in "Applications and launches" - just give it the green spot. Suggest you highlight dup wlinks e.g. with User:Evad37/duplinks-alt and remove Chidgk1 (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)