Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 September 2021 [1].

---

SpaceX Starship

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about SpaceX Starship, a fully reusable rocket in development by SpaceX. It describes each system components, its potential effect on spaceflight and a brief history. This article is a GA and have been grammar-corrected and follow the manual of style, as well as putting due weight on both side of the argument. I welcome all feedback for the article, and I don't mind if it get quickfailed because of a good reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• There are issues with image sandwiching (see MOS:IMAGELOC) and more citations to Elon Musk tweets than you expect to see in a featured article. High quality reliable source? I wouldn't have said so. (t · c) buidhe 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Just been looking through the ref list, nothing else so far. It seems some issues seem to stem from using the visual editor auto-citer without verifying accuracy (numbers as of Special:Permalink/1044783103):
  • Tweet and YT ref formatting is inconsistent, if you keep any make them the same.
  • 7, 11, 74: Fix the title, add info on publication
  • 12: Might be wrong, why does it link to the SpaceX homepage?
  • 13: Link changed, it looks like. In any case, remove "(BBC News)", and add author
  • 15, 43, 93: Add author
  • 17, 29, 34: Author formatting should be Last, First
  • 18: Formatting completely broken, please use CS1 for consistency with the rest of the article
  • 22, 25, 28, 39, 69-72: Use CS1
  • 25: Why is SpaceFlight Insider reliable?
  • 29, 34, 40-41, 52, 57-58, 61-62, 77, 82, 84-88, 91, 95-96: Why is Teslarati reliable? (and make the naming of the publication consistent)
  • 36, 42, 63, 94: Author has incorporated the date somehow, needs fixing
  • 37, 80: Add author and date
  • 40: Is that large quote necessary?
  • 52, 57, 62, 98: Add info on publication
  • 59-60: Clarify that "Space Exploration Technologies Corp" is the same as SpaceX
  • 66: Format like 59/60
  • 67: Not a permanent dead link, not sure why it's marked as such
  • 75: Date, fix title and publication (Spaceflight Now is the publication, not part of the title). Why is Spaceflight Now reliable?
  • 82, 109: Add date
  • 99: Add author and publication
  • 103: When does this video talk about Starship specifically?
  • 104: How does this support the sentence it's after?

That's all I've looked at so far; no comment on the content of the article yet. eviolite (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your critical comments! I will fix it now CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Progress by CactiStaccingCrane (talk):

• • Tweet and YT ref formatting is inconsistent, if you keep any make them the same.
  • 7, 11, 74: Fix the title, add info on publication
  • 12: Might be wrong, why does it link to the SpaceX homepage?
  • 13: Link changed, it looks like. In any case, remove "(BBC News)", and add author
  • 15, 43, 93: Add author
  • 17, 29, 34: Author formatting should be Last, First
  • 18: Formatting completely broken, please use CS1 for consistency with the rest of the article
  • 22, 25, 28, 39, 69-72: Use CS1
  • 25: Why is SpaceFlight Insider reliable?
  • 29, 34, 40-41, 52, 57-58, 61-62, 77, 82, 84-88, 91, 95-96: Why is Teslarati reliable? (and make the naming of the publication consistent)

It is mostly used for getting the part's name, usually with picture proof. It is generally considered reliable in spaceflight community, but I would try to find more reliable sources. Very little (reliable, secondary) sources write about Starship's components. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• • 36, 42, 63, 94: Author has incorporated the date somehow, needs fixing
  • 37, 80: Add author and date
  • 40: Is that large quote necessary?
  • 52, 57, 62, 98: Add info on publication
  • 59-60: Clarify that "Space Exploration Technologies Corp" is the same as SpaceX
  • 66: Format like 59/60
  • 67: Not a permanent dead link, not sure why it's marked as such
  • 75: Date, fix title and publication (Spaceflight Now is the publication, not part of the title). Why is Spaceflight Now reliable?
  • 82, 109: Add date
  • 99: Add author and publication
  • 103: When does this video talk about Starship specifically?
  • 104: How does this support the sentence it's after?

Comments by Epicgenius

I will take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Lead:

• The Starship launch system is a two-stage, fully reusable, super heavy-lift launch vehicle under development by SpaceX, consisting of an upper stage and spacecraft called Starship, a first-stage booster called Super Heavy, and various ground-based support infrastructure - This seems quite lengthy for an opening sentence. A long opening sentence should probably avoided since it is also the first thing modern search engines grab when someone searches for this. I think this should be split into two sentences.

Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• producing more than twice the thrust of the Saturn V. - Which is what?

What do you mean? Added thurst spec CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• SpaceX plans for both the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy booster - You can say "SpaceX is planning", or "SpaceX has planned", but "SpaceX plans" sounds awkward in this context.

Done, to is planning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• help the system meet its goal of significantly reduce - This should be "significantly reducing".

Done, CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• during launch, and can transport over 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) of payload - The comma before "and" is not necessary. As a fellow editor once told me, "what helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. Is 'can transport over 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) of payload to low Earth orbit in a fully reusable configuration' a complete sentence? No, so there shouldn't be a comma between the two sentences." I'd recommend checking for this throughout the article too.

Thanks for the advice! I'm sift through them now. Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I'd also check for instances of duplicate links in the article per MOS:DUPLINK. Generally, try to use them no more than once each in the lead and body (non-prose items like infoboxes, tables, captions, etc. don't count). For example, "payload" and "Mars" are linked twice just in the lead. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js can help you identify and remove these.

Thanks, I'm installing the plugin and fix the issues asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• orbital propellant transfer — refueling - This is a spaced m-dash but, per MOS:DASH, this should either be an unspaced m-dash or a spaced n-dash.

Done, I used an em-dash. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The lead is missing key information, e.g. development history and finances. Per MOS:LEAD the lead should adequately summarize everything.

Currently rewriting the lead Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• At present, most manufacturing, assembly, and test flights of Starship prototypes - As of when? Related to the previous point but the lead does not have any dates at all.

Fixed, change to As of September 2021 CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I also notice that the lead has some citations, but under WP:CITELEAD you could remove these if the info is adequately cited in the body (unless that info is particularly controversial).

Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Skipping to the body, I also see In January 2016, the United States Air Force signed a $33.7 million contract with SpaceX to develop a prototype Raptor engine for a methalox upper stage for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, with up to $61.4 million more available for any additional requirements. is an entirely unsourced paragraph.

Done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I'll add more comments later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you by a ton! Unfortunately I am on mobile rn, so I cannot address these issues immediately. Any feedback is highly appriciated! I'm doing it right now CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Gonna write down some of my comments for the body now, with more comments later.

Development history:

• SpaceX's next-generation launch vehicle has been renamed multiple times during the first several years of development.[8] - When did the idea for the next-generation launch vehicle start?

2005. Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " "BFR" for a conceptual heavy‑lift launch vehicle" - Not an issue in itself, but I laughed at this because my father is a SpaceX buff and calls it the "Big Fucking Rocket", which I suppose this is what it's actually nicknamed. The reason I bring this up is a smaller rocket called the "Big Falcon Rocket" (BFR) is mentioned later on in the section. So am I correct that BFR was given that backronym later?

BFR was the given codename in the past, and its full name is only known decade later. And yes, it was nicked Big Fucking Rocket :D. Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• the second stage "Interplanetary Spaceship" featured nine Raptors - There should typically be commas before and after the quoted part (i.e. the second stage, "Interplanetary Spaceship", featured nine Raptors), since it's not an adjective phrase where the commas would be unnecessary.

Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In September 2017, at the 68th International Astronautical Congress, Elon Musk - This sounds too similar to the beginning of this paragraph, which is just this but with "2016...67th". I'd change the phrasing it up a bit, like "Musk, at the 68th International Astronautical Congress the following September, ...."

Done, to At the 68th International Astronautical Congress the following September, Musk announced ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• second stage design - This should be "second-stage design", since the word "second" does not modify "stage design" (like in theatre), only "stage".

Done, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "and the collective launch system ambiguously named "Starship system" or simply "Starship" " - Not really an issue either, but I can see why it can be confusing since the upper stage and the whole thing are referred to by the same thing.

Yup, it can be confusing sometimes. I have tried to seperate them with "Starship spacecraft" and "Starship launch system". CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• atmospheric entry, however, - The comma after "entry" should be a semicolon.

Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• altered the fins design by moving from three to two rear fins - This should be "fins' design" or "fin design". But I wonder whether you can just simplify this as "reduced the fins' design from three to two rear fins".

Added the ladder suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• SpaceX South Texas launch site - Should it be "The SpaceX South Texas launch site"?

Yup, sorry for my terrible grammar. Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Firstly - This could just be "First". Also, five miles downwind could be converted using {{convert}}.

Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• and the construction ramped up in late 2018 - What did they start doing in late 2018?

They start building Starhopper and infrastructures. Added 'em. and the construction ramped up in late 2018 in preparation of a test vehicle named Starhopper. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Neither of these prototypes were successfully flown [...] the Mk2 was never finished - I wonder if the Mk2 even counts as being unsuccessfully flown, since it was never flown in the first place. Removing "Neither of these prototypes were successfully flown" could get the point across more concisely.

Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• On 8 March 2020 ... On 3 April 2020 ... On 4 August 2020 ... - There seem to be many sentences that start with dates toward the end of this section. I would switch the wording up a bit.

Hmm, I would fix 'em later. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

– Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Dracophyllum wades in

Hia, comments to follow.

• "In November 2018, the current names of the launch vehicle is first used: "Starship" for the upper stage and spacecraft, "Super Heavy" for the first‑stage booster and the collective launch system named "Starship system" or simply "Starship"." On this line you use the Template:R, which you never use again. Is it just because you only use websites otherwise? I see you have a couple more in the last sec so this may be why...

What do you mean? CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Don't worry.

• "Starship Mk1, unveiled in September 2019," why do you use underlining here and throughout this paragraph?

Someone use a {{Abbr}} template, which underline the text. Removed, made clear in the pargraph. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "SN9 flew to a lower altitude of 10 km (6.2 mi) on 2 February 2021, but it was also destroyed upon landing. On 3 March 2020, SN10 flew to an altitude of 10 km (6.2 mi) and landed successfully, but exploded 8 minutes later." Why is it ordered in this way and also what happened to SN7?

Ah, someone deleted SN7's sentence. I merged SN9 and SN10 together. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "In 19 September 2021, FAA released a new environmental impact statement, with decision pending." On 19 Sep.. and unreffed...

Added. Forgot to ref lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "The Super Heavy primary function is to provide Starship" > Super Heavy's

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• enough velocity to launch itselves to orbit, is "itselves" a word? if you mean both the booster and the spacecraft than say "themselves," or if just spacecraft then just say "it" or "itself."

Fixed, I just invented a non-existant word :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "whilst also contain enough fuel to perform a" I think containing would be better here maybe...

"containing" sounds a bit off. I use "carry" instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "hover manuvers toward the landing pad or the catching arm." take out second the

Done, added the 's' in "arm" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Starship would boost itself to orbital speed, and depending on the mission objectives, it would perform different tasks. For some mission that require going to higher orbit, leaving Earth's or even the Sun's sphere of influence," > Starship would boost itself to orbital speed, and, depending on the mission objective, would perform different tasks. For missions which require going to higher orbit, leaving Earth's or even the Sun's sphere of influence,"

Done, it makes the sentences a lot more coherent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I know that Starship and Super Heavy are supposed to be proper nouns but it feels rly weird to me...

Replaced with some other nouns, such as "spacecraft" and "booster" where's needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Similar to the Space Shuttle, the door would be closed during launch, opens to release payloads once in orbit, and closes again during return to Earth, and able to capture and return satellites and space debris back down to Earth" > would be closed during launch, opened to release payloads once in orbit, and closed again during the return to Earth. It would also be able to capture and return satellites and space debris back down to Earth.

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Starship uses two pairs of actuated "body flaps"—install perpendicularly" > installed

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "A pair of larger "aft flaps", is at the bottom of Starship, while a smaller pair of "forward flaps" is placed near the nose cone" > , sit at the bottom of Starship, while a smaller pair of "forward flaps" are placed near the nose cone."

Tried to find a synonym for a while now, and you just did it! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " the Starship vehicle" is never referred to as this again, > Starship

Done, to "the spacecraft" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "on entry to Mars because Mars's much thinner atmosphere." because of Mars's much thinner atmosphere

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "SpaceX envisioned several variants of Starship designed to be specialized at various tasks." > envisions, since they aren't made yet (?) also "for various tasks" is better || actually idk about envisioned....

Yup, they aren't made yet. Changed to "plans to build" though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "The original spacecraft design would only transport cargo in space missions initally, but it would spin off to a cargo variant" > , before spinning off to // becoming a cargo variant || also initally > initially

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " large cargo bay door that can open in" > could open in (conditional tense)

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Come into service later is Starship tanker variant would only carry propellant," > To come into service later is Starship tanker variant, which would only carry propellant, and could.

How did I write the sentence like that lol, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "and refuel the spacecraft in" > and refuel spacecraft

Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• " the Moon and Mars.In the 2017 design" space

Spaced CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "In the 2017 design unveiling, the Starship specialized for crewed Mars missions might have a pressurized volume of approximately 825 m3 (29,100 cu ft), with forty cabins, large common area, central storage and a galley" unclear what you mean here.

Made clearer, break the sentence apart. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Critics pointed out that the this interior design was not adequate enough to protect" > Critics pointed out that the interior design would not be adequate to protect. .. (Conditional if if wasn't built at the time)

Done, it doesn't exist (yet!) CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Musk defended by pointing out to the transit time to Mars, stating it will be too insignificant for a crewed Mars mission" what does this sentence mean?

Changed to "Musk defended by stating the dosage would be too insignificant for a Mars mission, pointing at transit time to Mars." CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "allevate" either elevate (get bigger) or alleviate (get less)

Never knew that "allevate" is not a thing, fixed to "elevate" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• may be cost‑competitive with business class airline > airlines

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• housing up to thirty‑three > the note here has no ref

Added reference to Starship user guide by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "An orbital launch of Starship could place up to 400 Starlink satellites into orbit, while whereas" deleted while

Finished! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

That's all I got, quite a lot of prose issues, however, so I hope I got them all. Could use another read over. Thanks, Dracophyllum 09:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all of these comments!!! Been waiting for those for a while lol Fixed all of the issues you just raised, thanks for taking your time reviewing! @Dracophyllum: CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Lean oppose from Urve

I believe this is the version I reviewed.

Leaning oppose on some sourcing issues that will take a great deal of care to sort out. There are some prose quality concerns but those are best addressed by someone else. Taking a meandering view of the article, I have several concerns about the sources that are used here, and how they are depicted in Wikipedia's own voice. For instance (non-exhaustive):

• Much of the "comparable" section of the infobox is not sourced or replicated in the body. "Energia", "Long March 9", "N1", "Space Launch System" are only in the infobox (unsourced), and the remainder are mostly not compared to Starship in the prose.

My thoughts that it is called "comparable" because it has the lifting capabilities of these rockets, but the fact that Starship is so much more capable, plus your comment, make the section irrelevant. Deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• far larger than the Falcon family of vehicles - this is not a quote from SpaceX so it should be explained who is saying this

Deleted. The original source is quite dodgy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Reference 9 is malformed; it is by Braddock Gaskill according to the link. I am not sure what makes this a "high quality" reliable source - it has some kind of editorial board and seems to serve a niche audience, but what was the state of affairs in 2005?

In 2005, not much is known about the vehicle besides these information. I will look into it later. Deleted, not verifiable. Reference 8 is reliable though, so I keep it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The vehicle is powered - source says "will", not present tense

Fixed, grammar issue CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• providing the first concrete details on what would become the Starship launch system - this is not in the source that immediately follows

Deleted the superlative and weasel words. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The first stage, known as the "ITS booster", was powered by 42 Raptor engines - the tense is wrong here. "ITS booster" does not appear in the following reference. where is this 'known as' from?

Should be "Interplanetary Transport System booster", the "ITS" is acronymized. Replaced "known as the" with "named" Added a source that back it up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• This entire section (initial concepts) relies fairly heavily on primary sources, so I have to ask: Is this information in due weight in accordance with other sources that exist on the subject? And my impression is no - because if it is only sourced to a Musk talk, or a SpaceX white paper, and not discussed in secondary sources, then it's not important to others, so it can't be important to us.

Looking up to it. There are many reliable secondary sources for the early days of Starship. These primary sources will be eliminated. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• the collective launch system ambiguously named - this is editorializing

Removed "ambiguously".

• what makes teslarati a high quality reliable secondary source? its about us page makes no mention of an editorial board

Replacing teslarati with other sources. They aren't fake news, but certainly not the most reliable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Musk noted that the strength‑to‑mass ratio of the new design should equal or better than the earlier design, from the low temperatures of cryogenic propellants to the extremely high temperatures of atmospheric re‑entry - these examples are not in the source, and "noted" is a word to watch out for, because it advances a point of view (MOS:SAID)

Finding the source, and will fix the tone later Found 2 sources, fixed to "noted" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• At the time, SpaceX considered using transpiration cooling—flowing cryogenic propellant through pores in the spacecraft skin—to protect the spacecraft during atmospheric entry; however, this feature was dropped from later designs - this is to a non-independent source (an interview). what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

There is many sources that cover it if I remembered correctly, I need to find them. Found 'em.CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In October 2019, the spacecraft's engine configuration was changed to its present form - probably true, but not in the source that follows

Finding sources. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• is there a distinction between self-funding and private funding? (I don't know.) it is said in the article that SpaceX mainly privately funds its own stuff, but the source says it is self-funded.

Replaced. Basically meant the same thing in this context. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• First, the ambient‑temperature-pressure test is performed by filling inert nitrogen into propellant tanks, which checks tank strength, plumbing, and potential leakages - the source immediately after just says that it was used in this case, not as a general rule. same with Finally, the prototypes are static fired by loading propellant and firing the Raptor engines briefly

All the tests are a "must-have" before flight, but I will find good sources for that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• How do the last three sentences of this paragraph connect to the rest of it, or to this section? (The ones beginning with Many residents and environmental activists have accused SpaceX...)

Seperated. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Adopting a new "serial number" nomenclature, an improved Mk3 prototype was renamed to SN1 (Serial Number 1), and development on Mk4 was halted shortly thereafter - how is this supported by the following reference?

Replaced with this: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/spacex-starship-sn4-pass-pressure-test/ CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Most Starship variants can perform atmospheric entry and land vertically with no extensive refurbishment in-between flights - is the source for this the Musk video? if so, is it DUE?

Will check later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In the future, SpaceX plans to replace 304L with a proprietary stainless steel alloy known as "30X" - it has been more than six months since this tweet. any updates? is this still the plan?

Probably not. Not that notable, deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• informally called the "skirt" - not in the immediately following reference

Will find the sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Similar to the Space Shuttle, the door would be closed during launch, opened to release payloads once in orbit, and closed again during the re-entry to Earth - this comparison should really be made by a reliable secondary source if it is going to be used for comparisons in the infobox

It is synthesized, deleted the Space Shuttle part. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• This variant is specialized - tense

Fixed to "This variant will specialize at" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The Starship tanker variant will come into service later, used only to carry propellant, which could automatically rendezvous with and refuel spacecraft in Earth orbit. This feature would increase the spacecraft's delta-v budget significantly, and enable Starship to travel to higher orbits or further destinations in the Solar System. For initial operations, the standard Starship can be modified to a smaller capacity tanker - unless I'm missing something, nothing here is supported by the following reference

Finding sources. Deleted statements with no sources, added a few sources to the remainder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Critics pointed out - this is vague; what kind of critics? healthcare advocates, safety experts, random journalists? would be helpful

Many experts, currently compiling. Some space researchers commented that the ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The radiation dose can increase lifetime cancer risk by 5% - the reference following only says this in connection with a specific setup (a specific flighttime and stay time on Mars); can we say in wikivoice that this is the lifetime risk, if we don't know how long any mission would be?

Will do, but I need more sources. Deleted, too vague to get any useful info about the flight exposure time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• relatedly, is this biomedical information that requires our stronger sourcing requirements?

Probably yes with the cancer dosage part. Finding sources. Deleted that cancer bit, not needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• more uses of the word "noted"; see above for why I think this is problematic

Will replace with more direct and less POV pushing vocab. Replaced all of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• SpaceX also envisioned a lunar cargo lander variant that delivers heavy payloads directly to the lunar surface under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program - what does this (information from 2019) have to do with the rest of the paragraph (April 2020)

Not exactly, Artemis and Commercial Lunar Payload Services is different. Not sure how to seperate them though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• There are, IMO, only two reliable secondary sources for the "Super Heavy booster" section, the rest of which are Teslarati or are primary

I agree, will finding sources CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Because of its design, the launch tower is informally dubbed "Mechazilla" - reference 101 and 103 say it is Musk's ; 102 makes no mention of it; 101 is Teslarati

Finding sources Replaced with https://www.independent.co.uk/space/giant-claw-spacex-starbase-photo-b1918905.htmlCactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• what makes this, and its author, a high quality reliable source? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#The_Motley_Fool is useful

No, deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Around August 2021, SpaceX has also used an alternate "S" and "B" numbering scheme instead of "SN" and "BN". - source?

Found 1, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/06/elon-musk-spacex-starship-fully-stacked-is-dream-come-true.html

Finding them... There are so many sources that need to be found... Might takes weeks days of work

In short, my issues are: (1) there is extensive referencing of primary source material that is not covered in secondary sources, and so is likely not important enough to be included here, (2) there are many places where verification has been failed [and I did not attempt to verify every, or even most, sources used], (3) there are many unreliable sources used extensively, like (probably) Teslarati.

I agree with all of them. All will be addressed tomorrow. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I kept my promises, and everything is done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

My concerns can be addressed, I think, but it will require a good effort. Urve (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Urve Hi, and thanks for giving such a comprehensive review! Thank you a lot for your very detailed criticisms, and I would fix them as soon as I can. Thanks again for coming to SpaceX Starship FAC! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I realy meant it, you just spotted so many mistakes that I thought there's nothing left. Thanks again for coming here and help pointing me cracks on the wall! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I picked a random sentence in this version: "In response to the criticism, the FAA released a new environmental impact statement, on 19 September 2021, with a final decision pending".

• In response to the criticism - An environmental impact statement is required to launch these vehicles, according to the draft statement; I don't see in either source that it's in response to the criticism.
• Is there any more information about this? I think we can easily detail many things based just on Ars Technica, and from a quick look, it appears there are many more sources about this. For example, we can say: That there is a risk of environmental harm (especially to endangered species in the region), that public comment ends October 18, that Musk recruited people to send comments to the drafters, that if there is an unmitigable environmental danger posed that it could take months or years for launches to begin, that the actual launch plans for Starship are not clear (something we always try to say, but secondary sources never do). The extent to which any one of these claims matters is not really the point - if our concern in FAC is about comprehensiveness, and there is some information here, we have to consider whether it meets inclusion.

Also, I agree with the below comment about stability. Urve (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Spicy

I have some general concerns about WP:FACR #1e, stability. The article was nominated at FAC by a relatively new editor almost immediately after its promotion to GA. That's not a reason to oppose, of course, but it's a reason to be hesitant, considering that even carefully prepared articles by experienced editors often encounter difficulty at FAC. The article has undergone an almost complete rewrite [2][3] since it was nominated. It currently contains ten 'citation needed' tags. Granted, these were added by the nominator as part of the process of improving the article, but if such extensive revisions to the sourcing are needed during a FAC, IMO it is not prepared for FAC and would be better served by a process such as WP:Peer review. The comments from reviewers above point out serious fundamental issues, not minor nitpicks and polishes. I appreciate the nominator's hard work on this article but I don't think it can be considered stable at this time. Spicy (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I do understand that, and I know that there is a high chance to fail the article. However, my main aim in this FAC is to get as much feedback in a short period of time as possible, and a peer review is often not comprehensive enough for me. The citation needed tags are used by me, where I flag errors that Urve highlighted, and make editing easier, not because someone else flag the article. Thanks for coming here however, you have reflect the situation very accurately. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

But FAC isn't meant to be "peer review but better" - it's expected that articles will be reasonably close to meeting the FA criteria by the time that they're nominated here. And if an article undergoes very extensive changes to prose and sourcing during the FAC nomination, this more or less renders the previous reviews invalid - it would have to be checked again to make sure everything is still in order. Spicy (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay, guess that I need to improve my article more before I submit it here. Sorry, I'm just a bit new here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

FAC cancel request

@FAC coordinators: Hello, I'm the nominator of the SpaceX Starship article, and per many comments, I want to cancel the nomination of the article. I want to take some time to rewrite the article, and make it excellent before nominating again. I nominate it a bit too early. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.