Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive2

SpaceX Starship

 * Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Plaid speed!!! - Spaceballs, probably" This article is about Starship, a fully reusable rocket which is in development by SpaceX. It describes technical, operational and cultural aspect of Starship, as well as many criticisms to the vehicle and development. This article also briefly mention Starship's development history as well. It has been expanded and reformed from Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive1 with a much more comprehensive Operation section, as well as criticisms to the system, and has undergone a huge peer review at Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1. If you know how the article can be improved, please reply and I will resolve it as soon as possible. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Lean oppose by Urve
While there has been substantial movement toward high quality sourcing since the last nomination, I am still quite concerned about text-source integrity. So, unless this can be attended to (and it will take a good amount of effort), I oppose promotion on sourcing. Version reviewed, some comments may touch on prose but that's not something I can competently speak to in general
 * Neither fn 5 or fn 6 support the general claim that Starship is composed of 304L stainless steel; 5 makes no mention, 6 only makes the claim for SN8
 * Moved fn5 to the first sentence, change fn6 to that mentions switching from 301 to 304L. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * The resultant gas quickly moves, and the engine nozzle redirects it to produce thrust. The Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension to increase its specfic impulse in the vacuum of space. - unsourced
 * Sourced! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * Super Heavy booster's primary goal - not stated as a primary goal in either fn 9 or fn 10; this speed has a connotation of being a limitation (not a goal?) by Musk in fn 10
 * Fixed to When launch, Super Heavy booster accelerates ... Mach 9 speed is not a limitation, it is a boon for Super Heavy to land without shielding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * I don't know what a "sea-level optimized Raptor" is at this point, but that description is not in fn 11 or 12; 11 says up to 32, 12 says up to 33, so that much is OK
 * ^ sea-level optimization is supported in a separate source so that much is fine, but what this means should be explained when the term is first introduced Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. Finding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * The booster is topped with a stage adapter not in fn 13 or 14; doubt it matters from a prose level, though, since we can just say they are attached and avoid the unnecessary words
 * Changed to On top of the booster, the Starship spacecraft is attached. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * After separation, the Starship spacecraft will accelerate itself to orbit and perform mission tasks and objectives - not in fn 15
 * Added . CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * composite overwrapped pressure vessels - not in fn 16
 * Removed, no reliable source is found CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * and three for the vacuum of space - paraphrasing of this sentence is too close to the source
 * Changed to three for vacuum operation CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * Positioned above are... - don't see this description in fn 18
 * Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * On top of the tanks is the payload section houses a liquid oxygen header tank and payload - fn 19 speaks to the header tank but the payload is not there
 * Added . CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * In the Starship crewed variant, the payload bay will house cabins and other facilities - not supported by fn 20, but the other sentences seem to be supported... interestingly, they also speak to using starship as a space debris cleaner, may be worthy of mention
 * Added the space debris thingy and . CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * "aft" and "forward" are redundant because being at the top/front means aft in (space)ship terminology. unless I am missing something, which I may be. anyway, adequately supported in what I see
 * Should keep it there for people who don't know what is aft and forward. They are also terms coined by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * The windward side of the spacecraft is covered by a heat shield made from hexagon tiles - fn 10 just says these are being tested
 * Replaced with.


 * This brings me to a concern about article in general: Are we trying to describe the intended final version of Starship, or the several prototypes which have already launched and will continue to launch? We are mixing around descriptors -- some for the final one, some for the current one (for example, some ships have three raptors when launched, but the final design will have six, according to one of the sources) -- but there's no accompanying textual disclaimer about to which it applies
 * I describes the final version of Starship as of SpaceX plan in October 2021. SpaceX is ridiculously fast, so it is hard to know what is their final design. Added a sentence for disclaimer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * I assume good faith on fn 22 because I don't want to watch it
 * Confirmed to be accurate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * minor point: likely to be the first site to launch Starship to orbit - fn 28 says that it's the current plan. there may be a distinction between something being planned and something being likely (I dunno if that's the case or not); either way, suggest changing to 'planned'
 * It is planned. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * fn 25 cannot support the "As of October 2021" claim because it is from January
 * Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * minor point: fn 34 says it has landed on drone ships, not that it might in the future - unless I miss something (didn't read it all)
 * It is planned, not have landed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * letting the booster's grid fins touch down on them - don't know what this means (what is "them" referring to?)
 * The catching arms catch the booster by letting the grid fins to touch down on them. Don't know how to phrase it though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I think these demonstrate the extent of my concerns, all only being in the first two subsections. I am separately concerned about criterion 1e being fulfilled with the major changes that regularly occur, often daily or several times a day. I can return later for more comments, but having to read dozens of articles and finding that many don't verify the accompanying text is difficult - it's harder to figure out what a source doesn't say than what it does. If my comments have been helpful, I have an open peer review here. Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * didn't read "Future variants" section or beyond
 * Thank you so much on reviewing the sources! It is really hard to know what is missing in the sources when you have +100 of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Hurricane Noah
Here's two more unsourced ones I thought I should point out. Just a tip as I saw your comment above about not knowing what the sources lack, it becomes easier to know more about your sources the longer you spend working with them. I have found it's better to work more slowly on something than to try and speed through it; there are fewer mistakes that way. I always let the sources write the article and it never does me wrong. Keep in mind that others will expect you to know everything inside and out since you are the nominator. Noah Talk 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like I should get into habit of writing the source down then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The engine is cooled by circulating the fuel around the outside of the fuel chamber, which also preheats the mixture.
 * Source added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)


 * Verified test articles will launch in different flight paths, depending on their objectives.
 * Not unsourced, the list of test articles have flown in different path (hop, 10km flight), and this is not WP:SYNTHESIS. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
 * It still has to have a source at the end of the line backing it up. Regardless of what other supported text states, we can't leave other sentences unsupported. Noah Talk 12:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The account uploading the video for FN25 is not that of a reputable expert/agency. Noah Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. Noah Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the relatively recent flurry of additions and large changes (unrelated to FAC), I would say this article is unstable and fails 1e. I also see there is an ongoing dispute resolution related to content in this article, which further emphasizes that. Considering there's only 5 books and journals here and there are quite a few more with relevant content, the article does not meet 1c either. I'm not convinced this article is well-researched with the amount of scholarly research out there. I feel I have no choice but to oppose this nomination given my above reasons. Noah Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am recommending this article be withdrawn until such time it is stable and there is a general consensus for what should be included in it. Considering there is currently a dispute resolution open regarding whether or not a section should exist within the article, this is far from stable. Noah Talk 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The dispute resolution happened before this article is nominated for FAC, so I couldn't do very much at it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that there is not a consensus to promote this article, so I am archiving the nomination to allow the areas identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two week hiatus will apply, but I look forward to seeing the article here again in an improved state. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)