Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful Urve (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look. I haven't substantially edited the article; if you object to me looking this over, I'll {{db-g7}} the review. Thanks, Urve (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing:

File:Starship full stack.jpg - good
File:Interplanetary Transport System launch-1.jpg - good
File:BFR in flight (cropped)-2018 version.png - good
File:SpaceX Starhopper.jpg - good
File:Starship sn5.jpg - good
File:Starship SN9 Launch Pad.jpg - assuming good
File:Starship SN8 launch render.webm - good; creator has a more limiting statement in the description "you can use this video in your own videos for illustration purposes" but it's marked as CC, so ok
File:Starship SN20 getting a tile inspection.jpg - good
File:SN20 Static Fire test on 10-21-2021 at 19-16-00 From SPI by Mars Embassy.jpg - assuming good
File:SpaceX sea-level Raptor at Hawthorne - 1.jpg - good
File:Raptor-test-9-25-2016.jpg - good
File:Starship SN16.jpeg - good
File:SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island (crop 2).jpg - assuming good
File:Realistic Artemis 3 mission diagram labeled.png - good as a composition of free photos - assuming that this does not replicate any copyrighted images
File:Super Heavy catching fast.webm - good
File:Starship SN9 Moon.jpg - assuming good
File:The Boca Chica Rocket Factory.jpg - good
File:USA - Texas - Boca Chica - Starbase (51286772204).jpg - good

Images are good Urve (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source check:

Used a random number generator to perform 10 spot checks of this version
15: ok - could also say it had approval from port authorities
17: ok - also says it previously used the "Mars Colonial Transporter" name, but our article just makes a reference to this ("the company revisited the plan in the form of the Mars Colonial Transporter concept"), could be a bit more clear there
29: "and was shorter than the final spacecraft design" not in source, "hopped without a tether to 20–30 m" is not exactly in the source (Berger demonstrates more skepticism, says maybe 20 to 30). it would be three months, not two, right?
30: this one does say about 65 feet for the previous hop, so the previous is ok; does not say the distance of the landing pad, but does say its size
40: two instances of this used. first: does not say the test was complete, just that it was scheduled (probably ok). second: good
46: paywall, assume ok, please check
58: two instances used. first: don't see the "first time" language used here. second: ok, but doesn't say Phobos and Deimos will specifically be from where most launches will launch in the future, just generic seaports
61: two uses. first: ok, but spacex should be the author. second: don't see this
67: five uses. first use: ok. second: ok. third: ok. fourth: ok. fifth: unsure. source 76 says "With this description of the global flow field generated by the Super Heavy, it is likely that the exhaust plume length is 3-4 times longer than predicted for a single engine (645-860 ft)", so unsure on the math.
87: two uses. first: unsure if the airlocks are "near the top" in the source. second: ok.

bold are problems (in my reading). maybe more later Urve (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random number generator again for five checks, this version
23: paywall, please check
25: ok
52: ok, worth expanding the background (they expected two contracts, not one) and result (blue origin lost)
90: ok
119: I am assuming that this is reliable, though I'm not familiar with the publication. Text checks out

Prose notes:

It may be helpful to separate the explanatory notes into a dedicated notes section. People will assume that these footnotes are for references, not for further explanation, and can overlook them and their important info. See {{efn}} for how do to this. Refs 68, 77, 79 of this version are primarily explanatory.
For "In September 2016, a day before the 67th International Astronautical Congress, the Raptor engine was fired for the first time", date may be helpful.
more later Urve (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for reviewing the article so early. For images you are currently assuming good, I tried to provide sources at Wikimedia Commons just to be sure. Else, I will fix them in the coming days. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The assuming good are just assuming good faith that the uploader took the picture and didn't take it from elsewhere. I'll have more comments later Urve (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but it's good to be extra sure :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I found a suspect copyvio image. I nominated File:SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island (crop 2).jpg for deletion and remove it from the article for now, as it only contribute slightly to the article's quality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane: Clearly, the sourcing is considerably better. But out of 15 checks, there are still a few problems. I'm not sure how comfortable I would be promoting this. I could do more spot checks, but if there are more than a couple of minor issues in what I've already done, I can kind of imagine how it'd go. Let me be clear: The prose seems very nice, you've clearly had a competent copyeditor go over it, and prose was never that big of a deal. And above, you've helped with the image licensing issues that you yourself discovered. The article seems more or less balanced -- I'll just state again that I have my misgivings about Berger, but won't press the point -- which is appreciably better than before. Article content is pretty much at or near GA level, but the sourcing is not. I suppose I'll ask, do you think a GAN is the space to fix up these source-text integrity issues? I'm comfortable waiting, like, a week, and then returning and doing a spot check, and if there's still problems I'll fail it then (GAN is not for extended editing but to push close articles over the finish line) - but if there's no appetite to edit under a time-crunch, I'm not comfortable with where this stands. Urve (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urve, I've added some citation needed tags for now, but I'd reckon that the text now matches up more with the sources. I will try to do some final cleanups in the weekend. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urve, I would like to withdraw the nomination. There are multiple aspects of the program that are under-developed, and technical information is sorely lacking. I think the article needs a bit more time to be complete than what GA allows. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane: I understand. Please renominate whenever you feel as though the issues have been addressed to your satisfaction. I can't promise that I will have time to look when it's all done, but remind me and I can give it a go. I will close this as unsuccessful using the new closure script; if there are any errors with the close, please let me know. I appreciate your honesty and your work on the article. Urve (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.