Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive2

SpaceX Starship


This article is more-or-less done now and I want to nominate it at featured article candidate once everything is polished. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by User:Leijurv:
Edit: All my comments were as of this revision.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has never read this article before, I'm going to read through it, pretending as if I've forgotten everything I know about Starship.
 * I'm not sure about "developed". It feels weird because while, so far, they have just done development, it is intended for more. Perhaps "designed and manufactured" like Falcon 9? Perhaps "operated" like Atlas V? Also okay might be "under development".
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is not mass-produced yet, so manufactured isn't quite right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've used "under development" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Kudos on what you're doing right now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "assisting" is definitely the wrong word, maybe "enabling" or "permitting"?
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I find this a little confusing. What exactly is a "debut"? How will we know when it has "debuted"? It has been constructed, unveiled, selected by NASA, part of it has flown, etc? Is it not already the largest rocket ever constructed?
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "all" should be "both", and "and burning" should be something else, maybe "that use" or "that burn" or "using".
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this fails to explain why this is important. What is a "hop"? Why does the name of the test vehicle matter? Perhaps instead something like "In July 2019, a prototype vehicle achieved stable flight and hovering with a Raptor engine, at the Starbase facility" would be better.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again I think this focuses on the wrong things. "SN8" doesn't matter. Somehow this only mentions that it crashed, without mentioning the important part which is that it flew! You can infer that it flew, but it isn't clear unless you already know how Starship works.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we (cacti and myself) already agree on this, so not much to say here. Regardless, this is worded clunkily and I'm not sure it belongs in the lede.
 * ✅, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Phrased awkwardly. Beginning with "little" is strange. I'm not sure I even understand what it's saying. Is it saying that there was no competition between... countries... before private spaceflight, or what?
 * ✅, reworded to show it is in the US context Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Replace "companies" with "new entrants" or something like that, maybe "startups"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not valid grammar. Perhaps "Only in the early 2010s did a substantial amount of competition begin, alongside the growth of the commercial sector"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs more explanation. What is the Falcon 9? Perhaps something like "SpaceX has been striving for reusability since at least 2009 with its previous launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, by attempting to recover and eventually reuse its first stage". Also link to Falcon 9.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this needs a link, footnote, or some other kind of explanation for what it means to be "specialized" to one "facet" of spaceflight. What's a "facet"? Is this trying to say that other rockets have.... limited payload fairing sizes? limited orbital injection capabilities? limited number of stages? an inability to refuel in orbit? All those might be true, but I don't know which.
 * Not too sure about this either, any ideas? Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nigos Hmm... what I'm trying to say is that Starship can virtually do anything, like lunar and Mars landing, space station, small sat + big sat launcher, etc. Not sure how to phrase it. Maybe "sector of space industry"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, finally. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand why, but this has now been said 3 times in a short timeframe. Perhaps that could be reduced to 2. I don't feel strongly though, it might only work this way.
 * ✅, removed the part about oxygen and methane Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps throw in a "among other reasons" or "for reasons such as", because I don't think it's quite this simple. There's also ease of storing, volumetric density, and specific impulse.
 * ✅, added "among other reasons" Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps rephrase "All Raptor engines have their engine nozzle regeneratively cooled and should be able to fire many times, possibly reaching a thousand firings as a long term goal"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. The reader has no use for this information, and it doesn't make the article better, rather more confusing.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * SpaceX intends to build many variants
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence about specific impulse is okay because it links to specific impulse, and that's a standard metric by which to judge rocket engines. However, this sentence about throat to exit area, is probably too much detail. I might remove it, probably belongs on the Raptor page.
 * ✅, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replace "One is fed with an oxygen-rich mixture, and the other is fed with a methane-rich mixture." And perhaps combine with the next sentence, connecting with a "therefore" or some such.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slightly confusing. The dry mass will not actually range, it will be an exact figure. There is only a range due to present day uncertainty. Perhaps rephrase "Super Heavy's dry mass (without propellant) is expected to be between" or something like that.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not above super heavy, they are on super heavy near its top. "above super heavy" makes me think they are on starship.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Confusing to read. The F9 grid fins can retract and spin, these can just spin. It should be more clear that the "rotate on one axis" and "retract" actually refer to the same motion. Perhaps something like "the grid fins can only rotate, they cannot retract like those on the Falcon 9"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For attitude control in space
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Add a comparison like this to the earlier 90db. Perhaps compare to the db of an airport.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Confusing. "tank in a type" is icky. Also "spliting" is missing a second "t". Perhaps: "Starship splits each variant of propellant into two tanks, a main tank and a header tank, for a total of four tanks to store its 1200 T of propellant". Meh. I don't really know how to make it sound great, but it's worth thinking about.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nigos Better: Each types of propellant have two dedicated main and header tanks, for a total of four tanks storing 1200 t of propellant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth rephrasing to add an interesting tidbit, in my opinion. Perhaps "Header tanks are needed to store the last bit of fuel needed to flip the spacecraft and land vertically with its engines."
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rephrase "Two forward flaps are mounted at the nose cone, and two aft flaps are mounted at the rear."
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rephrase "Starship's heat shield is composed of many hexagonal black tiles mounted directly to the spacecraft. The tiles are mounted with some room to accommodate thermal expansion, and should be able to withstand atmospheric entry multiple times."
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be worth mentioning the second place rocket, how much does it have, in comparison?
 * ✅ I would compare it to Apollo command and service module. Doing the math, that would be 180 times. However, in my opinion, this is pretty misleading, as it would imply that you can fit 500 people to Starship since the CSM can hold 3. I might try with something that's closer to Earth, let's say a typical commercial building elevator volume, which is now about 150 times. That would be easier to picture, and much easier to image imo. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is there both downward and upward acceleration for liftoff?
 * Source said so :) No really, look at the source, it really said so. Cannot argue that. Also, :D CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I can argue that it doesn't make sense as-written (and yes, I am also saying that the cited source doesn't make sense as-written). What does that actually mean and how could it be rephrased so that it makes sense to the average person? Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is difficult... I really have no idea how. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ because other alternatives sound way off. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading the source, and from my own experience in engineering, I believe is a false interpretation of the provided information and misleading in this context. First, the provided figures in the starship user manual are maximum limits - they are not necessarily nominal values, they are there so a payload designer knows the maximum possible loads their structures must withstand. Second, this information is in the context of vibration analysis - the ship's vibration may briefly cause transient downwards acceleration. I think the sentence as written is misleading; most readers probably just care about average accelerations over long timespans, if at all. I suggest striking this sentence as well as the following one about sound pressure inside the fairing. A fully contextualized set of numbers would be distracting and only useful to payload designers. Troy Trombone (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, it makes sense as these figures can be misleading. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Troy Trombone, thanks for joining Wikipedia, it really does help to have people like you to rectify facts. I'm just an average spaceflight enthusiast :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused by this, isn't it more important to bring payloads to space, than capture and return them? Shouldn't that use case be mentioned first?
 * ✅ Oops, fixed.
 * I don't understand this. Given the previous sentence that this is "another possibility" to, it reads as if one option is to have a payload door, and another option is to have trunnions. That doesn't make sense, wouldn't you need a payload door in either case?
 * ✅, wording fixed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * can be adapted for missions
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the intent, which is to explain to the reader that delta v budget is like the range of a spacecraft, but I think it can be phrased better. Perhaps "delta-v budget, which is similar to an operating range" or something?
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * research -> researches
 * I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that it could be interpreted as a hostile attack? A nuclear strike? Or what?
 * Obviously you're meant to click on the links, but per WP:EASTEREGG we can make it a little easier on them, perhaps "has influenced other rockets such as Terran R and Project Jarvis" so the reader knows they're rockets.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe "since improvements in launch capacity and cost can be applied to Starlink satellite launches, and Starlink profits can be fed back into Starship development"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "may" -> "would" or "should"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To avoid the weird grammar of "one are", perhaps "For example, the" and then at the end "could be made possible by Starship"
 * The article says "terraforming" and I think that is the more common word, perhaps use that here too
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Change of tense, "has often made" is past tense but "pressures" is present tense. Change "pressures" to "pressured", or change "made" to "makes" (but not both, haha).
 * There is no event to anchor the "had" to, so this doesn't make sense. Probably just "musk has acknowledged"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "fuel Starships to return the settlers to Earth." But perhaps "settlers" isn't right, because if you return you aren't a settler just a visitor, maybe?
 * ✅, changed to generic "people" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This feels like it needs a sentence after it, maybe like "For these reasons, the Sabatier process is not used on Earth for economic reasons, but it will be the only option on Mars"? Perhaps, I'm not sure.
 * I'm not sure this makes sense to say, it seems obviously and necessarily true.
 * ✅, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "at facilities" doesn't make sense, maybe just delete it?
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The "where" doesn't make grammatical sense, perhaps instead use ", then unravelled"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "complex" -> "complexes"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Replace comma with semicolon
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Replace comma with colon
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * cover the development program
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The last Oxford comma with the "and" doesn't make sense. "Claiming that SpaceX the forced sale of houses" doesn't work. Perhaps ", forced them to sell their houses, and caused noise pollution".
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unclear what "first corner", "second corner", "last corner" means.
 * This sentence is missing the "so what". What was the conclusion of the analysis? Are there advantages? Feels like this needs a ", and they concluded that the offshore platforms could be vital in making Starship rapidly reusable without causing unacceptable noise disruption to onshore communities" or some such.
 * "just before" -> "then"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Same comment as above ^ for this "budget or range" phrase.
 * ✅, removed as it was explained earlier in the article already Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Add "such as Earth, "
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship's body faces windward after atmospheric entry
 * Probably worth saying the direction, not just "changing", it should say "increasing drag and decreasing terminal velocity". Maybe even go above and beyond and say why we want to do that, how the heat shield will reflect heat, etc
 * Reduce it from what? What's the alternative? Are the G-forces comparable to landing in other kinds of spacecraft? Are they within human tolerances?
 * Sorry to say it, but this entire paragraph looks like WP:PRIMARY/WP:OR to me. Do we have WP:RS saying that this analysis is valid? It looks like this is just directly cited to a primary source analysis paper.
 * "at" -> "in"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "at" -> "with"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhhhhhhhhh, the "often" feels like WP:WEASEL. I don't know. Maybe it's fine. It feels a bit too... fanboy, I guess.
 * Removed "often" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove "vast", it borders on WP:PEACOCK
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * haS led to many prototypeS exploDING
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article uses "spacecraft" or "launch vehicle", I don't think "space vehicle" works that well.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this would read better as "launch vehicle that could put" or "launch vehicle capable of putting"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, reads a bit better as "booster would have". Same goes for "spacecraft was going to have nine"
 * ✅, change to "would have had" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not valid, perhaps just remove "getting"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a random note, should this be sea-level-optimized? I know that's weird, but it feels a bit better since "level-optimized" feels like "one thing". Idk.
 * I'm not too sure about this Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Besides" -> "Beyond" or "In addition to"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Missing a phrase, perhaps "rather it was intended for getting more"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Link to dearmoon
 * ❌, it was already linked earlier in the article (lede and the commercial section)
 * Awkward, perhaps it could be just ", paid for by"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Missing a word, maybe "alongside" or "along with". Also "containing" should be maybe "bringing" or even "ferrying". Honestly maybe just reword the whole thing, something like "In September 2018, the dearMoon project was announced, to be funded by (descriptive phrase like "billionare" or something) Yusaku Maezawa. During a presentation to blah blah, a revised design of the Big Falcon Rocket was presented, that would have blah blah blah. Maezawa, along with six to eight other artists and SpaceX pilots, will fly a free-return trajectory around the moon, to 'create amazing works of blah blah next generation'"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * He did not revise it during the presentation, so maybe instead "During the presentation, Musk detailed the revised"
 * Seems to have been already done.
 * "is" -> "was"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mention it was untethered this time. Are there any copyright-allowed photos that could be added too? Also it's worth explaining that by "hop" it means a controlled hover at low speed, otherwise it might make people think of a ballistic trajectory (which is much more normal for a rocket).
 * ✅, looking for photos Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it alright if I link to external media instead? Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure! Leijurv (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Awkward, maybe just "presentation given by Musk"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * unlike the carbon composites used in
 * The rationales for the switch are
 * Link to SpaceX Starship offshore platforms somewhere in here
 * Does this mean "melted the pad below"? Or was it already molten from unrelated causes? :)
 * but it crashed into the pad, still at high speed
 * performing an almost identical flight path
 * "make" -> "made". Or rephrase entirely, maybe "posed a danger to the surrounding area"
 * which would have
 * two sub-orbital launch pads
 * "tank farm for storing propellant" or "tank farm to store propellant" or "tank farm that stores propellant"
 * "to" -> "into"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Add commas: "authority, power, and potential abuse for eviction"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "by" -> "due to" Also explain more, that some legs got crushed on one side or whatever, maybe include a picture?
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "is" -> "being"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "by" -> "as"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "in" -> "under"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "complete" isn't really correct, perhaps "full-scale" or "full height" or "stacked"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sentence is missing something like "SpaceX explained the planned trajectory of the first orbital flight of the Starship system in a report sent..."
 * Sentence is missing something like "SpaceX explained the planned trajectory of the first orbital flight of the Starship system in a report sent..."

And there's an nice, even, 100 bullet points.
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hope this helps! :) Leijurv (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll fix this once I'm able to do so Nigos (talk | contribs) 09:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A few more by proxy (credit to )
 * Say where in Florida (Coca)
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "then-bankrupt" isn't great, maybe "during their bankruptcy proceedings"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * awkward
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * if you're going to say "named" you can just say "featured"
 * awkward
 * buckled then burst
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "to be" -> "as a"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "fire" -> "firing"
 * ✅ Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "started accelerating" -> "accelerated"
 * Seems to be done.
 * unclear meaning
 * ✅, clarified (i hope) Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Leijurv (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:SYNSG:
SYNSG (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the source cited here doesn't actually mention this claim, only stating that "this was the first time a large rocket engine burning liquid-methane propellant made a significant flight", which is unrelated to the combustion cycle. roughly the same claim is made earlier in the article with an appropriate source, perhaps reuse that citation. also, saying it's the "first prototype to operate..." is a bit misleading, it's the first prototype to fly. as mentioned earlier in the article, FFSC engines have been tested on stands before.


 * Will find source for the claim, . CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Meta-comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
This makes me a lot less confident for the article to pass FA. This does not mean that the reviewers are bad, not at all! It is just that there are so much stuff needing to be done. My prediction that an editor would not be enough is spot-on here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I also cannot contribute much anymore, since I am going to have a hectic schedule near Christmas. See you guys later, and hope that Wikiholism don't kick in :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Watchlisting this for the time being. I know someone off-wiki who is interested in SpaceX and who might have input on missing information etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being involved here, feel free for them to fact check anything :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, folks. I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages but I am effectively the space blogger on TV Tropes. I can look over this and give my comments but bear with me since I'm not used to the markup. Fighteer (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free! You can learn the markup here: Help:Wikitext. Once you get used to this, it becomes pretty easy to use. Do keep in mind the verifiability policy before adding or removing content, it is really important to sort out speculations! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nigos: Wait a sec... A comment by @Hurricane Noah in the article's previous FAC said this: 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. Should we include them? For Noah: What do you mean by that comment? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We could include them in the mission section Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You will need to look through these and find any relevant ones that need to be added. Noah Talk 13:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, to the best possible extent. I am poor and many resources being paywalled pretty heavily. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns about the article's compliance of the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Many of the sections presented have its own article and the featured article criteria has this counted, so this is important problem to solve. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just my opinion and I tend towards more "comprehensive" in terms of information content, but I don't think the sections are unnecessarily long and detailed. Imma ping SandyGeorgia too for a different perspective, since they tend more towards "summary" than I. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything of concern length-wise; the overall article length is fine, and the sections which have sub-articles are not excessive. Should the article grow considerably, tighter summaries may be needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia I just gonna play safe and use the summary style instead of the inverted pyramid, as the topic is expected to grow a ton in the future. The summary style is not just "summarizing" in the guideline in my view; it makes sure that the reader can understand the topic when jump into sections, i.e. read Starship history first before design. I would think of this as writing the lede of a brand new articles, with some exceptions. Is my interpretation of the guideline correct though? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:Fighteer (talk):
We can always use the Wikidata infobox on simplewiki and vnwiki Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we discussing Starship and its Super Heavy booster in the present or future tense? Using the future tense implies that the statements will shift to present (and past where applicable) at some point. Using present tense implies that various claims and statements have already occurred. For example:   To me, an enthusiast, this implies that it is currently operational. It is also an absolute statement that would need to be revised should a larger and/or more powerful rocket be created. I wouldn't write it that way, but this may be in keeping with Wikipedia's general guidelines. Further, the grammar in this article is all over the place, with a confusing mix of past and present tenses.
 * The ambiguity between Starship (referring to the upper stage) and Starship (referring to the entire launch vehicle) presents a challenge for economical writing. I blame SpaceX for this, but c'est la vie. For example,  appears to use "spacecraft" as a qualifier but this is nowhere in use in SpaceX's own public documents nor in media coverage. I see that the distinction is made in the Design section, which a reader would need to examine in order to clarify the introduction.  I would prefer "upper stage", as that is the primary role of the vehicle, but I will cede the point if this has already been decided.
 * In the Background section: "partly" and "numerous" make the language feel cluttered. I would remove "partly" and better enumerate the challenges.
 * Can be read to imply that Falcon 9 is no longer in service, an inaccurate claim.
 * I suggest adding a paragraph describing the philosophy behind Starship in terms of the economic value of a fully reusable launch vehicle. I'll draft it when I have the occasion.
 * The link to environmental impact statement in the Starbase section implies that the FAA has required an EIS for the site when in fact only an environmental assessment is being performed. Since the EA process is incorporated in the EIS article, a pothole might be used to avoid confusion.
 * Portions of this article are redundant with SpaceX Starship development, creating a risk that inaccuracies may be introduced if one of them is edited but not the other. Further, that latter article has tags for original research and excessive detail. We should either merge them and clean them up or shift the detail over to that article.
 * If I understand Wikipedia policy (MOS:TIES) properly, units and vocabulary in this article, including the Wikidata sidebar, should use American spellings since SpaceX is a US company and operates in America.
 * Thank you for reviewing the article! About Wikidata, it is extremely difficult to change its spelling, because it is supposed to be unified and someone chose metre over meter for that. Otherwise, I will try to fix up all of the issues that you and Leijurv addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm still making some more observations but need to get to sleep soon. A compromise on the Wikidata issue might be to use SI abbreviations for units, as I've seen in other articles, to avoid the spelling conflict. Fighteer (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will try my best at that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you should not have a wikidata infobox on any featured article. Why not? Wikidata is much more vulnerable to vandalism than Wikipedia is, apparently. Also, if the Wikidata is vandalized it won't show up in your watchlist so you may not notice. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll fix that tomorrow once I'm able to. Nigos (talk | contribs) 16:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The wikidata infobox has references and vandalism can easily be fixed just as added. Changes can be seen and reverted by just clicking a few buttons and adjust its value. In my experience, it is not that often (3 during 3 months) as the vandal typically add either too-early-elon-announcement on Twitter or "69420" things. @Huntster quite often patrol the page so there should be no problem. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reward here outweigh the risk of vandalising, and I don't really see a huge problem after wikidata is set up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll hate me for this, but I'm going to vehemently disagree with this. Despite mostly working on Wikidata now, I strongly believe that using WD for Infoboxes should absolutely never be done for complex situations like what we have here. Wikidata items are not the end-all be-all. They are just as susceptible, if not more, to vandalism, and they are inflexible. As a knowledge storage device, WD is very useful; as a supporting service to other projects, it is not. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it won't cut it when the article starts to translate to other languages, for example, Vietnamese or Simple English. IF left as is, the infobox would be soon out-of-date. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Urve
First look at a source review. Version looked at. Have to go now, will pick up at section "Variants" when I'm able to Urve (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * General comment: Some FAC regulars believe that sources should all be standardised in terms of capitalization of titles; this doesn't matter to me, but it is a consideration. Compare citation 78 (title case) to 16 (sentence case). Make of this what you will.
 * Cite 14, not sure if faa.gov is relevant; it's just the technical hoster of the document. If you want to include FAA in the citation, maybe Federal Aviation Administration is better than just faa.gov.
 * Good - all of the pipes (|) have been removed from site titles
 * Spot check and specifics. Based on first instance of the sources only, did not check repeated uses.
 * Reference 2: Good
 * Reference 6: where is "Raptor Vacuum" in this? I don't see it being said that it's part of Starship
 * Reference 7: don't see "its design can change rapidly" supported
 * Reference 12: Good. Probably better to compare it to the Space Shuttle than "many". You can say that there are plans to have redundancy, and that the Moon and Mars wouldn't support an escape mechanism - that's why there's not one.
 * Reference 13: OK.
 * "On SpaceX's website"? You can say "According to SpaceX" instead. This reads weirdly and the precision (a website vs. a press release) isn't necessary
 * Reference 17: OK.
 * "like all conventional rockets": One concern people may have is editorializing. Why do we need to say this? It's obviously true, but the effect it has it it diminishes the complaints by saying they're to be expected. Which may or may not be true, but I don't think we should be giving that impression.
 * Reference 24: does not say black AFAICT
 * Reference 29: Don't see this information there
 * "It is formally defined by a whitepaper" - "in a whitepaper" is better, but I'm not sure it matters
 * Reference 33: There's too much information in the source that I don't understand to check for accuracy, please verify all details yourself
 * Reference 21: theses are not generally high-quality reliable sources unless the author has become a respected academic in that area of study
 * General comment: I dislike Space.com (mixed scores at RSN), but probably OK for this article.
 * I have less time than I thought, so if I can find some, I'll return to this. I will say that if this is nominated soon, I will either not comment or oppose on stability and probably sourcing. The spot checks I've done are concerning, because even though I'm not looking through every source, there are still problems with source-text integrity. I did some informal spot checks that I haven't written down, and several aren't supported by the citations.
 * I think after this peer review is done, we need to find a stable version of the article that does not have significant prose, sourcing, or layout issues. Then sit on it for a couple weeks. Then nominate it. The dozens/hundreds of edits a day are very hard to keep up with in a peer review, and especially a FAC, because the versions we review will quickly become outdated and we have to entirely start over with all of the additions/removals. My two cents. I'm disengaging from this for now. Urve (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! I will self source check the article for all ref, since this ratio of bad ref is concerning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ahecht (talk):
I did some copyediting to the article, but it is nowhere near FA status. It needs to be VERY careful about differentiating between what Elon Musk claims the rocket will be able to do, and what the rocket actually can do. As I write this, the Starship portion can do nothing more than fly on three engines to 10km and land, and the booster has done nothing other than a fit check (and even then, while all the engines were installed, they weren't all plumbed in). Any claims of performance or size need to be qualified with the fact that a complete flyable rocket has not yet been built, and that Elon Musk has a long history of stating aspirational goals as facts. I fixed the sentence The rocket consists of a Super Heavy booster stage at the bottom and a Starship spacecraft at the top, making it the tallest and most powerful of all., but you have to be very careful of using statements like that without (a) qualifying them as planned, (b) dating them (as of when?), and (c) avoiding non-specific and non-encyclopedia language such as "most powerful of all" (all what?).
 * It's pretty difficult to work on these stuffs, where everything changes everyday. I should have picked another article when joined Wikipedia... Anyways, thanks a lot for your comments, and I will try my best to improve the prose to the best of my ability. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane Yeah, this article is a great start, but it's hard to do a Featured Article on an unstable subject. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * @Ahecht ✅, hunted to the last facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:StarshipSLS:

 * @CactiStaccingCrane The article is very well written. I made some edits for clarity. I also agree with the above statement from User:Ahecht that Elon Musk often puts aspirational goals as facts. I also reccommend avoiding using Elon Musk's tweets as references and instead using articles from NASASpaceflight and other similar news agencies. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @StarshipSLS Thanks for the compliments. I have removed all space.com and Musk tweets from the article, and I will skim the article again for checking and rephrasing goals. Also, welcome back! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane Thanks for the welcome! The reason I haven't been editing lately is that I've been busy with my spaceflight website. Because of this website, I will likely be editing Wikipedia on and off, so I may not reply right away when you message me on Wikipedia, so the best way to reach me would be via Discord. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @StarshipSLS Ah, alright. Good luck at working at your website! I hope that the materials inside Starship's Wikipedia page would help you partially with that goal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! @CactiStaccingCrane StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Related GAR
There is a Good Article Review at Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)