Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2

SpaceX Starship

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/SpaceX_Starship/2&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: The first thing I noticed when beginning this closure is that the article is still very unstable: there have been more than fifty edits in the past five days, some of them very substantial. This is problematic because it is impossible for editors to perform accurate assessments of an article's content when that content keeps changing. Some problems with sources remain unaddressed (e.g., the article continues to state that SpaceX acquired Valaris's rigs in January despite the source saying August) while others have been recently introduced (e.g., this edit today replaced three sources with one other source, leaving most of that paragraph's content unsupported, while this edit yesterday introduced outdated plans without clearly identifying them as such). Other concerns also remain unaddressed; for example, has yet to justify  opposition to the inclusion of critical opinion editorials, and despite his or her promise two months ago to stop POV railroading, there seems to be even less criticism of this project now than when this GAR began. (I can only find one sentence now, down from four.) In light of these and other problems, I am delisting this article. Furthermore, while I believe that some of the problems introduced by CactiStaccingCrane can be explained as good faith errors (it seems obvious to me from this discussion that he or she is not a native English speaker), it is clear, both from the evidence and by his or her own admission, that the overall trend of his or her editing is tendentious; I would remind CactiStaccingCrane that tendentious editing is considered disruptive and could lead to being blocked if it continues. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This article has changed significantly since it became a GA, with content being culled/added, and I have a few concerns with this. My main being NPOV issues, with the repeated removal/moving/renaming of the criticism section and other general criticism in this article. Because of this, I believe the article now fails GA criterion #4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Below, I have listed the multiple modifications/removals of the critism section, almost entirely by : At this point, the article currently has minimal sections documenting criticism of the project, with a small section half way down the article called "Environmental impact", of which half is dedicated to criticism. Other than this I cannot see any major concerns in the article. Because of this clear NPOV issue, I believe this article should be delisted from GA status.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049106596 Attempting to rename the section
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049132059
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049132216 then saying it's "undue weight"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049195972 Trying to tone down the criticism
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049294399 third time trying to change name
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049507467 Toning down even more
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049717807 Uninvolved user adding back certain removed content
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049724105 Completely removing section and adding some of the content back ino the article
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049724804 CSC reverts after edit is reverted
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1049749455 Uninvolved editor reverts it all as discussion is still ongoing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1051568856 removing the entire section as there is "no consensus" against doing so
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1051679545 Edit reverted by QRep
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1053205048 Adding a criticism maintenance tag once again...
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1053346164 ...which is reverted by PMC
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1054093684 Fourth time trying to change name
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1054094218 Splits of section into seperate article, also called "environmental concerns"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1054205097 Uninvolved editor renames header once again and adds back content
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1055016273 Moves section again
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1055218831 Above edit reverted
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=1056711826 Removes entire section based on two people agreeing on talk page


 * A dedicated criticism/controversy section is, more often than not, not the right way to present criticism of a topic. Personally, I would support discussing the criticism in the sections where it's relevant, for example, moving the content to environmental impact and safety sections. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that a section named specifically "Criticism" is unnecessary. However, this article in its current state has about 4 sentences discussing negative reception of this plan (which is obvious there is). — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that CactiStaccingCrane's editing behaviour is intended to minimise the mention of criticism or controversies (given their expressed admiration for Musk and the project). Given they have indicated they wish to take this to FAC, comprehensive coverage of criticism and controversy related to the project will be required in this article IOT to meet FA criteria 1b. and 1d. Some editors consider that a separate section for such material isn't necessary or even desirable, however, often the controversies or criticism isn't obviously associated with any one aspect of the subject, and in those cases, grouping such material together can make sense. Either way, the material needs to be in the article both at GA (to continue to meet criteria 3a. (addresses main aspects of the topic) and 4. (NPOV) and FA. There is also a serious question mark over whether it meets criteria 5. (stable) if there is such to-ing and fro-ing about the inclusion of this material. Unless the attempts to minimise criticism and controversies ceases immediately, I would be recommending delisting. I strongly recommend discussion of how to incorporate this material is conducted on the talk page asap. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Berrely, Peacemaker67: About the criticisms that Stonkaments and I have, they are more about Starship development and Starbase. It has been copied to another section at SpaceX Starbase, and I'm trying to find criticisms about Starship itself. I found adding a dedicated section for criticism is not a great idea (evident by Musk's controversialness). I really want to get someone else to write the criticisms instead, as they would be a lot more neutral than I am. I'll disengage from the article now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tried to gather criticisms and other POV to the article, with little success. See Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping QRep2020 and Stonkaments for discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe criticism of Starbase should be kept in the Starship article instead of being moved to the Starbase article in its entirety. I've found some articles online on criticism of Starship as well:
 * https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/21/22738106/spacex-boca-chica-starship-launch-site-faa-town-hall-environmental-assessment
 * https://phys.org/news/2019-10-elon-musk-starship-moral-catastrophe.html
 * https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-starship-launch-proposal-draws-vocal-support-some-criticism-in-faa-hearing/
 * https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/01/nasa-identifies-risks-in-spacexs-starship-lunar-lander-proposal/
 * Can these be incorporated somehow? I can work on these later. Nigos (talk &#124; contribs) 01:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am doing it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was also some discussion of this here. Leijurv (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Throughout the many recent revisions, I believe that the tone of this article is not that of standard Wikipedia tone. Because of this, I believe it fails Criteria 1b, where an article must "[comply] with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I've attached a list of a few places I believe are tonally inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia:


 * Headers "Starhopper–SN6: Hops", "SN8–SN15: Flights", and "SN20–: Launches": usage of argot
 * What should I use instead? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is quite difficult to use different terminology here since the three different phases of Starship testing thus far have all been different criteria. From what I've encountered amongst other Ring/Tank Watchers, the hops are anything below approximately 7 kilometers, the flights are anything that stayed inside the atmosphere, and the launches will occur with anything resembling an orbital or sub-orbital test flight. Hope that clears some of that up! XFalcon2004x (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Because of its success, SpaceX plans are usually met with widespread support with very little critical comments": blatantly breaks Criteria 4 and NPOV guidelines
 * Deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "One potential use for Starship is space tourism, an example is the dearMoon project announced by Japanese entrepreneur Yusaku Maezawa"
 * Splitted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "...as in December 2021 he has predicted a crewed Mars mission may happen at most five years"
 * Deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Unlike other companies at the time, SpaceX is more focused on other customers, so the company try to launch cost by producing parts itself"
 * I tried to describe vertical integration in an attempt to reduce cost. What should I say instead? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Provided are only a few examples of casual tone on the page. To put it bluntly (I don't mean to put anyone down here), a large potion of this article reads as if it was written by a child. I think a major rewrite is required in order to remove the extensive tone inconsistencies.
 * I tried to simplify the language here because this is a spaceflight article, which uses a lot of jargon and things. If tone is what you wanted, I do think more collaboration between editors is necessary and clean up the weeds. It's pretty difficult to be NPOV on something recent, especially when reliable sources is very polarized on what Starship is. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Berrely, I have a question though. Why do you do a GAR instead of suggesting on the article's peer review? I do feel this is pretty stressful to handle both of these at once. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:PG, avoid dumbed-down language. Otherwise, the article may be more appropriate for Simple Wikipedia. Theknightwho (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought that the article is too technical... I will fix this after all NPOV issues are fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that you shouldn't use jargon unnecessarily, but don't shy away from it when it's the most accurate way to describe a certain concept. Theknightwho (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit, I have done POV railroad to Stonkaments and QRep. Utmost apology to them, and I will not do that in the future. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. As I've said before, there is departure between the cited sources and the actual text, and while it has improved, I don't think it's sufficient. For example, I scrolled randomly and picked this string of sentences:
 * In January 2020 SpaceX purchased two drilling rigs from Valaris plc for $3.5 million each during their bankruptcy proceedings, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceports cited to this, which says August.
 * Next sentence, After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "SN"., has a footnote saying it's obvious; whether or not that's the case, I don't know, but also I have no clue what "Mark series" means.
 * Next sentence, No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 flew: SN1 along with SN3 collapsed during proof pressure test and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing., cited to this, which doesn't support anything about SN2, despite it apparently existing. (I say apparently because I have no familiarity with Starship.)
 * Next two sentences, During the interval, the company accelerated the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, including large tents, stations, and repurposed intermodal containers. When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker., cited to this. First sentence OK (though I don't know what an intermodal container is; that description is just lifted from the ArsTechnica piece, and I don't understand what a "tent" means without reading ArsTechnica). Second sentence is concerning, because as far as I'm reading the source, all of the information is aspirational - it's what Musk wants to achieve, but it's not necessarily saying that construction actually is quicker, or that being linked together makes construction quicker; both of those conclusions are problematic. But even if all of that is true, I'm not sure we should even be using Berger for that information (or stating it as incontrovertible fact); he seems to have some kind of interest in how we perceive SpaceX, given that he has "unparalleled journalistic access to the company’s inner workings".
 * Stability I've already made clear elsewhere is concerning to me. None of this is an attack on any maintainers of the article. I have zero interest in the subject of the article, and zero interest either way in how this GAR concludes. These are just some observations I have; sometimes the work is too big for us, and we lose sight. I think GA status should be something challenging to achieve; otherwise, why try? Urve (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the similarity between files like File:Side Starship sketch.svg and probably copyrighted designs should be looked at. However I have no familiarity with the copyrightability of product designs and leave this for someone else. Urve (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article to have more criticisms. Is the article due now, or need more improvement? It is worth noting that finding source that is negative about Starship is very difficult. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I just rewrote the article's lead again, should the lead language be more neutral? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Starship is a fully-reusable rocket made out of stainless steel, developing by SpaceX. Both of its stages – Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft – contains liquid oxygen and liquid methane. Starship would launch upright, with the booster's thirty-three Raptor engines operating in parallel. Super Heavy separates and the spacecraft fires three of its Raptor Vacuum engines, inserting itself to orbit. The booster then control its descent via grid fins and positions to the launch tower's arms. At the mission end, the Starship spacecraft enters the atmosphere, protected by a series of hexagon heat shield tiles. The spacecraft glides using its flaps, flips up, and fires three of its Raptor engine to land upright.

Starship's main features are high capability and low operating cost. The rocket will launch at Starbase, Kennedy Space Center, and two offshore launch platforms. The spacecraft tanker variant can refuel spacecraft in space, increasing its 100 t (220,000 lb) transport range to the Moon and Mars. Other spacecraft variants can deploy satellites, serve space tourists, and explore the Moon. Starship's low cost might make SpaceX Mars ambition and make rocket travel on Earth possible.

The rocket is first outlined by SpaceX as early as 2005, with frequent designs and names changes later on. In July 2019, Starhopper, a prototype vehicle with extended fins, performed a 150 m (490 ft) low altitude test flight. In May 2021, Starship SN15 flew to 10 km (6 mi) and landed, after four failed attempts by previous prototypes. As of January 2022, the BN4 booster and SN20 spacecraft may launch near early 2022. Starship iterative and incremental development has unrealistic goals, harmed environment, and displaced residents.

There also used to be a Finance section that no longer exists in the current article. X-Editor (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I readded the finance and criticism sections, but there are some citation errors that need fixing. X-Editor (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Delist, seems like no one is interested to place the article back to standard, including me. I will renominate the article instead, keeping this GAR is a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I want to reiterate my opinion here. The closurer was not able to defend their rationale, so this review is still kept open. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Close GAR?
I think that I have addressed your NPOV concerns, as there are now many paragraphs which details about Starship criticisms. Is it appropriate to close the GAR now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because it was entered as a community reassessment. The instructions for community reassessment say: "After discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". There are still outstanding concerns above about sourcing and, probably, the images. Urve (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being inactive here for a bit. The images are definitely copyright violations. Autotracing a copyrighted design in Inkscape and adding arrows does not give it a new copyright (especially if you claim own work). Also, as pointed out above by Urve, I wouldn't withdraw the nomination after the concerns have been addressed, an uninvolved editor will close it. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 07:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per your copyright concerns, I removed them and nominate for deletion. I will try to spot check the articles, but it's gonna take some time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane I think we need some guidelines on the article talk page for people editing so they know exactly what should be kept and to make sure all images are CC. Similar to the invisible notes in the article, but a list of notes on the talk page. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a spot check and fix references. May someone else spot-check again? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, about NPOV, I found very little source that is directly criticizing Starship, and a lot of them are op-eds. I don't think that NPOV is actionable here, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the GAR of SpaceX Starship is now becoming zombie-like, when I ask for comments multiple times and no one is responding. I also don't feel that the article is that bad that it needs a GAR, as a notice on the article talk page would do for me. So, I would close the assessment, but I am more than happy to reopen the reassessment if anyone wants to chip in, pinging, ,. I won't add for now, as an uninvolved editor would decide. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What questions have you asked me "multiple times" without a response? I still don't see why Berger is a good source. Random things: What makes the Mabboux master's thesis reliable? How is an op-ed unreliable for statements of opinions, but Trevor Sesnic's interview with Elon Musk is reliable for statements of fact (such as At the bottom of Starship are six Raptor engines, with three operate in the atmosphere and the other three Raptor Vacuum may operate in space)? What makes this reliable for statements of fact? Is Elon Musk the same as SpaceX, such as when it's said that SpaceX has stated its goal is to colonize Mars for the long-term survival of the human species cited to this, which is just repeating what Musk says? And if that is the case, why is it not mentioned that Musk himself told nonprofit XPrize in April that some astronauts will “probably die” en route to Mars - an important detail about the sustainability and safety of the project? Etc. Urve (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Also, my questions above don't seem to be resolved? Urve (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning these, and I will fix it right now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It takes me a while to answer these questions. Here you go:
 * Berger does has a board, and while I am not sure he has a conflict of interest (i.e. he has stake on SpaceX), I don't think that other sources are that reliable while giving in-depth information either.
 * Per WP:V and Identifying reliable sources (science), Mabboux thesis is unreliable and will be replaced soon.
 * Tim Dodd's interview (summarized by his editorial member Trevor Sesnic) do contain information that comes from the primary source, and the review is verifiable by his 2-hour video series. I don't cite the video itself, partly due to inaccessibility and unable to verify crucial information. This is the case that I think the primary source is better than secondary source.
 * : This is a proposal for monitoring Starship's re-entry, and the claim "Starship is designed to be a fully-reusable orbital rocket, with the aim of reducing launch cost drastically" is best verify here. I can add other citations if you would like, but I afraid that they would be of lower quality than this material.
 * Elon Musk is the spokeperson of SpaceX, but I will try to find information target to the company itself. It is pretty funny that there is not a lot of info that mention SpaceX as a whole, but a ton targeting to Musk. Irony...
 * Yes, the sketchiness of SpaceX's Mars plan must be added, which I have spent the second paragraph on this section for, albeit with more focus at tangental projects.
 * I do understand your concerns about the sourcing, but it starts to get harder and harder to find more reliable information about the topic at this stage of article development. I would wait till after the next Starship presentation 2 days later as there would be more reliable source to reference at. Thank you for addressing these concerns, and sorry for being a bit aggressive earlier. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Replies:
 * The January vs. August issue I highlighted earlier has not been dealt with. Some of the argot and implication issues I discussed before (like what intermodality and tents means, and whether they actually hasten production) are not resolved.
 * I note your thoughtful explanation of Berger's inclusion, but I do not find it persuasive.
 * Regarding this, I'm asking how it's reliable for factual statements because I have no clue what it is. By that, I mean: Is this some kind of undergrad research proposal, a conference presentation, some kind of press statement at an event, a NASA proposal? You don't need to answer; you know better than me, but that was my central issue. But looking at it now, I have quibbles: Starship's heat shield is designed to be used multiple times with no maintenance between flights - the source is talking about a thermal protection system doing that; I have no idea whether this is exactly the same as a "heat shield", or whether it includes other elements within and without the spacecraft (like perhaps whatever "reinforced carbon carbon" is), so I can't comment on whether that's accurate. each mounted and spaced to counteract expansion due to heat - I don't see that in the poster.
 * I note your other explanations and express no opinion.
 * I reiterate my confusion as to how primary sources, like interviews, are acceptable, but op-eds are not.
 * Again, no ill will, and I don't want to tank your hard work -- I have no interest in this matter. Probably better for me to disengage from here. Urve (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)