Talk:SpaceX/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 12:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Utmost apologies, but I'm going to have to quickfail this. There's substantial work required here to get up to the GA level, it hasn't been performed in the month+ that this article has been at GAN, and the history makes it clear the stability to perform that work doesn't exist -- and very likely won't exist for quite some time. (It's very, very difficult to write a top-quality article about something currently happening rather than things that have happened, and I've plenty of respect for the fact you've done as well as you have.)

A few notes:
 * Several citations are bare URLs. I note #137 and #144. Several more are to social media SPSes, some primary and some secondary, including #95, #138, #158, #191, and #201.
 * Primary sourcing is quite extensive. This isn't inherently problematic, and in many cases I can buy it's more reliable than news media trying to regurgitate the matter, but it's something to keep an eye on. Similarly, Business Insider ('marginal' per WP:RS/PS and IME pretty useless clickbait more often than not) is, so far as I can tell, one of the single most common news names popping up -- I'd be hesitant to pass a GA using it so much even if it weren't for the other issues here.
 * Is there exactly one short paragraph of criticism of SpaceX, ever? Separated-out criticism-and-controversy sections are a subject of some debate; in this case I suspect you'd need either a much larger one or none at all (with the Armenia/Turkey thing discussed elsewhere in the article, as some other criticisms are).
 * Stability. This is a high-traffic, high-intensity, high-interest topic. When you've got an edit summary saying "rewrote a quarter of the page" during the GAN waiting period, you don't have the stability for a realistic assessment. It's not so bad I'd quickfail on it alone, but all these factors combine into a situation where I just can't in good conscience put the article on hold -- I think it'd only serve to give false hope and force you into picking at more issues than someone can realistically handle in the source of a single GAN.

I haven't dived deep into the prose, which I would have if I weren't quickfailing. As it stands, the sourcing, balance, and stability issues led me to the conclusion a prose review would be rearranging deck chairs. I regardless noted a number of grammatical errors that were also called out in edit summaries, in particular mixing up 'a' and 'an'. I recommend requesting a copyedit at WP:GOCE to see what I haven't. Vaticidalprophet 13:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! This is very helpful. The sourcing in the article is a problem, given how SpaceX often share information in informal channels. I absolutely agree about the criticism section. In my opinion it should be avoided. However, I was waiting for a GA review and subsequent second opinion to potentially remove it. As for the stability, to be fair the edit did not change a quarter of the article, it seems more like many minor changes merged into one edit (except for the controversies section). Apart from that, I think the article is fairly stable considering the huge amount of traffic and attention it receives. I know it's difficult to promote high traffic articles, but this is the kind of work that also brings the most benefit to the most readers, so I think an attempt is justified. In any case, I completely understand the quick fail. I hope I will be able to address these problems and renominate a much better version of the article. Thank you again. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)