Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1

SpaceX Starship

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 • Watch peer review

Hello, I want to have SpaceX Starship to be peer reviewed, because I am not sure how the article can be further improved. I have nominated the article to good article successfully and featured article unsuccessfully. The article has drastically changed, so these comments are irrelevant to the current version. Please, if you know how the article can be improved, tell me right now, and I will reply as soon as possible. If the peer review is comprehensive, I might nominate SpaceX Starship for featured article again.

@Osunpokeh: one of the main contributors; @StarshipSLS: WikiProject's coordinator; @CRS-20: an active SpaceX related contributor for peer review CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This
peer review
discussion is closed.

Comments by User:FormalDude:

Lead section:

First sentence: change 'comprising a' → 'comprised of'
Second sentence: add oxford comma after 'heaviest'

History section:

Needs photos.
I wonder if a third "Present day" section should be created and some of the content moved there.

Description section:

Second sentence of first parargraph: 'Whilst' is british-speak, change to 'while'.

Starship subsection:

Third sentence of first paragraph: The first two commas are unnecessary. Change 'which' → 'that'.
Last sentence of first paragraph: add a comma after 'pressure' and before 'and' .
Second sentence of second paragraph: Reverse structure in order to avoid passive voice.
Fifth sentence of second paragraph: change to present tense. 'tiles that made up' → 'titles that make up'
Final sentence of second paragraph: the semicolon should be a comma.

Planned variants subsection:

The second sentence should be split into two sentences at the first comma.
I think the word 'most' in the third sentence is redundant.
Paragraph two: 'which SpaceX terms "Earth‑to‑Earth"' should be in parenthesis rather than em dashes.

Super Heavy subsection:

First sentence: 'Super Heavy' does not need em dashes or any punctuation surrounding it.
"Above sits the liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant tank" is not a complete sentence, add that it is above the booster stage or combine with previous sentence.
Combine sentence four and five into one sentence: 'used to attach the upper-stage / and is equipped with'.

Here's my initial feedback, I'll add more as I get the chance. ––FormalDude talk 04:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in Plaid speed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Firefangledfeathers

Working from the bottom up:

Public response

The first sentence likely only needs one source.
Most uses of "Boca Chica" should replaced with "South Texas launch site" for consistency with the rest of the article, or vice versa.
Anything in the FAA report relevant to Starship should be summarized.

Operation

Prototype testing is undersourced. The space.com source mentions, but does not detail, just the static fire test. If the rest is not mentioned in RS, it likely doesn't need to be included.
"The Starship crewed Mars variant is ..." sentence could use some qualification. "is planned as..."? "is envisioned as..."?

Done for now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedbacks! I added all of them to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane: A couple more from me in the Description section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The bottom of the booster houses up to 33" raptors but the source says 32.

The newer source [65] said 33. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Looks like 66, but point taken! Good to go here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The inside of the skirt mounted composite overwrapped pressure vessels, which store gas to spin the engines' turbopumps." This sentence needs a copy edit but I lack a technical understanding of what it's trying to describe.

The composite overwrapped pressure vessels store gas to spin turbopumps. I had copyedited the sentence. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Was the detail on the mounting location important? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, very. I have added the position, which is inside of the section. You can see them as black tanks here: [1] CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I mean the specific detail of their being mounted on the skirt, present in a prior version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Comments by Akbermamps

From taking a quick look at the references section, the citation style used is a little

inconsistent

.

FN1 & 2, despite being from the same news source, use cite web and cite news. Cite news is usually used for this, so change that wherever appropriate in the article. CNBC is also listed as a publisher in FN2, which usually isn't used; either the website or the work parameters will be fine for where the publisher parameter is inappropriate.
FN6 & 9 are also from the same source, but Space.com is linked in FN6 and not linked in FN9. To remain consistent, either the website/publisher is linked or isn't linked. This also occurs with many other sources in the article.
FN30 isn't a dead link.
FN38 seems to be the only place where TechCrunch isn't capitalized in the article. It also doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors unlike the rest of the article.
FN49 & 50 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors; the "April 2021" at the beginning of the references is unnecessary.
FN71 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors.
FN72 is the only place where "NASASpaceFlight.com" doesn't have ".com" at the end.
FN95 isn't a dead link.
FN115 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors.
FN120 doesn't need the "CNN" and the "CNN Business Photographs by Tamir Kalifa for." at the beginning; those can be seen later in the ref and in the news article itself. "Jackie Wattles" should also use the "last name, first name" format.

The captions in the gallery also have some minor issues.

"Top section of Mk1 Starship" should be changed to "Top section of Starship Mk1" since that's the naming convention used in the article and in sources.
"Starship SN7 repurposed as a test tank" should be changed to "Test tank SN7" since I remember SN7 only being reserved for test tanks and never being intended to be a full Starship. Elon Musk also doesn't mention SN7 being repurposed. "Prototype SN7 was never completed, but its tank was used for various tests." is mentioned earlier in the article, but the source did not mention SN7 being originally intended as a full Starship or its tank being repurposed.
"Starship SN5 is lifting" should be changed to "Starship SN5 being lifted"
"A steel dome belongs to a Starship prototype" should be changed to "A steel dome belonging to a Starship prototype"

That's all for now, but I do intend to try and check the rest of the article. Akber mamps 01:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! Fixing the ref rn CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbermamps: I addressed to all of your comments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Starship SN20

The infobox needs some references
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
The lead section should also have more than 1 refernce
- Not really needed, usually only for controversial statements CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
The timeline is not needed/in the right place
- Where should I put it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Very little to none about the ITS(Interplanetary Transportation System)
- The ITS has a very thorough coverage at the development section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Refs 112 and 113 (and others) do not support support the the statement before them.
- Fixed, added other citations CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Too many categories
- Fixed, removed parent categories CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Starship SN20 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Am addressing them rn CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanCherek

Reviewing this version.

"SpaceX has also used" → "SpaceX also used"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Two
MOS:LQ
fixes needed in Note [a]
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Can de-link United States in infobox (major country that readers will likely be familiar with)
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"Starship is capable of launching" → is or will be?
- Will be. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"latter" generally means "the second of two", so I would replace "latter three" with "last three"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"launch pad would be used" → "launch pad will be used"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
wikilink Raptor in first paragraph of lead
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
wikilink to liquid oxygen rather than oxygen in first paragraph of lead
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"by any prototypes" → "by any prototype"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
It's strange to mention BFR at the start of the Design process section and then not define the acronym until the end of the second paragraph
- The BFR in 2006 is very different than the BFR in 2018. Elon mentioned the 2006's BFR as-is, without the full name of the vehicle.
"have flew to residential" → "have flown to residential"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Testing campaign — re-introduce the Boca Chica site being the same as the South Texas launch site
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"loading then unloading" → "loading, then unloading,"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
You don't need to wikilink "broke ground"
- De-wikilinked. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Is the groundbreaking date of the Boca Chica site relevant to Starship?
- Done Probably not very significant, although the launch site is designed for Starship. In my opinion, it should be kept. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"hop to an altitude" → "hopped to an altitude"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"cryogenic test; Mk2" → "cryogenic test and Mk2"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
If this is a generally American topic, I would recommend switching to MDY (and keep
MOS:DATECOMMA
in mind)
- ~~Fair, although I prefer DMY. Switching.~~ Switched back to DMY. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
- The article has been in dmy format since it first became an article (from a redirect) in March 2019. Per
  MOS:DATEFORMAT, it should stay in that format unless some strong reason to change it, and that consensus should be reached on the Talk page. I just checked the Talk page, and Talk archives, and no discussion where this should be changed has ever been proposed. N2e (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"test on February 28" which year is this referring to?
2021. Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"crumbled SN1" → "caused SN1 to crumble"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"header tank does not provide" → "header tank did not provide"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"explode at impact" → "explode on impact"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
The "SN9 is built similar to SN8" sentence makes it sound like SN8 flew on 2 February but you're referring to SN9, right?
- Yup, changed it to SN9, which is built similar to SN8, flew 10km high on ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"On March 30, Starship" — need a space between this and the preceding ref
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Why did they skip over SN12–14?
- SpaceX considered them as obsolete and go straight to SN15. Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"it would never fly" → "it never flew"
- I rephrased to This booster prototype though had never flew or hopped, and it was retired on August 2021. since BN3 had already been retired CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"hasn't" → "has not" per
MOS:CONTRACTION
- Done, also checked for other 't contractions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
I would replace all instances of "would" with "is expected to" or a similar phrase in the paragraph starting with "On July 20..." if those things haven't happened yet
- Done, the first "would" is replaced with is planned to though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"Many residents of Boca Chica Village, Brownsville" I think this paragraph was previously its own section and you've merged it? It sticks out because it's not like the other paragraphs in the Development section and isn't really about development. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
- I want to integrate it to the article. I moved it to a brand-new Starship development sub-section under Operation section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"SpaceX is said to have harmed" — attribute, i.e. make it clear who said what
- Done, changed to Residents and activists said SpaceX have harmed local wildlife ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
The reception paragraph could use expansion in general — what is the validity of the critics' claims? What were SpaceX's responses?
- ~~Thanks for pointing out this! I will expand it asap.~~ @DanCherek: Done ~~I have strong opinions about this section, and may introduce bias. I want someone else to do this section instead.~~ I have added some info with diligent care. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Timeline is nice
- Thanks! I also use color-blind friendly colors as well CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
You don't need to wikilink "Sun"
- Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
In general be careful with how you are describing capabilities of a system that is still in development and hasn't undergone certain tests of whether it can actually do those things. I'd say this is one of my major issues with the article.
- I agree. I don't really have an article to based on, and this is my first time aiming for , so I might get things wrong sometimes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"Workers inspection of Starship" → "Workers inspecting Starship"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"skirt also house" → "skirt also houses"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"rocket engine, measures" → "rocket engine and measures"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"liquid oxygen which create" → "liquid oxygen which creates"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"door would be closed" → "door will be closed"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"payload bay would house cabins" → "payload bay will house cabins"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"would dissipate" → "will dissipate"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
In general, check your usage of "would" throughout the article, many instances of these are better replaced with another word. There are many more that I'm not pointing out here
- ~~Checking, shooting down "would" with a lazer gun~~ Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"as well as caught" → "as well as to catch"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"These offshore platforms were named" — this sentence makes it sound like the moons of Mars, not the launch sites, were previously Valaris drilling rigs
- ~~Paraphrasing. This is a bit tricky.~~ paraphrased to These offshore platforms were former oil drilling rigs owned by Valaris, and named Phobos and Deimos after the moons of Mars. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"rendezvous it in Earth orbit" — this verb is not in the correct tense
- Changed rendezvous to rendezvousing CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"a US$2.89 billion contract" — you didn't specify the currency with previous figures, what's different about this?
- Changed the first figure to use US$, and later to $. All of them are American dollars CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
"along with begin assessing" → "and began assessing"
- Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Refs 88 and 93 has a cite error
- Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I hope these are helpful. I also have a peer review open here for an article I'm working on, and any comments would be appreciated if you have the time; no worries if not. DanCherek (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek: Thank you so, so, so much!!! Thank you for spending the time reviewing! I will definitely look at your peer review as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now, except a few which is in progress. About the dmy thing, I would use mdy in text and dmy in source. Also, thanks once again for your extremely helpful comments, I would review your article tomorrow if I have time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

@N2e: We are discussing using mdy or dmy here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've added a comment inline where the reviewer's personal preference was initially expressed. N2e (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an off-the-cuff comment from me without having checked the talk page or anything else

I will defer to those more familiar with the topic area. DanCherek (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CactiStaccingCrane, and DanCherek for invite and comments on date format. I think we've got that in okay shape now.

But I have a meta-question. I just stumbled into this peer review and recent

WP:GA push on the article, when I fixed the dmy thing on the article this morning. Did not even know peer review / GA push was underway. Is this still a live review? This page is titled "archive". N2e (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@N2e: Yep, still live; the "archive" title is standard and is just for organizational purposes (closed peer reviews will be marked with {{Closed peer review page}}). The purpose of this is just to seek comments from other editors to improve the article further after this version was promoted as a GA on 14 September. DanCherek (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles also use a similar naming scheme for candidate reviews, for example see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Dust Was Once the Man/archive1 which is 'archive' but is currently an open nomination. Zetana (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, appreciate it. I now see that the article already has been promoted to GA, and this page is about potential

WP:Featured article

status. I have concerns about that... at least with some seemingly major thing.

I will try to get back here (or whereever I should do it, if not here) and articulate that sometime this weekend. N2e (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for coming here! I remember that you are a main contributor of the article as well. I really want to have comments of any kind on the article, so I don't really mind if it is a bit harsh. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RealKnockout

I will be reviewing this version for prose and other miscellaneous issues. Please let me know if you think any of my suggestions are incorrect. Thanks!

Lead

"consisting of a first-stage named Super Heavy and a second-stage named Starship" --> I don't think there is a hyphen in first stage and second stage. Also, perhaps add "rocket" or "booster" or whatever applies after "first stage" and "second stage".

Removed hyphen, but don't switch it to rocket and booster. It must be precise. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"The launch vehicle can produce 72 meganewtons (MN) or 17,000,000 pound-force (lbf) at lift-off, which would make it the world's most powerful rocket once operational." Instead of "at lift-off" you should probably say "during lift-off". Also I think the hyphen should go away from here too. Also, while "would" is not wrong, I don't really enjoy its usage throughout the article. Try to find synonyms which allow the sentences to flow better.

Changed to during lift off. Lift-off is wrong. I have tried to remove "would", but it is much harder than I expected. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"Starship is designed to launch 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to low Earth orbit. If tanker Starships transferred propellant to the main spacecraft, the same amount of payload would be able to go to higher Earth orbits, the Moon, or Mars." I would like it if these 2 sentences were joined, as they talk about the same thing. Here is a suggestion on how they can be join (this is just an example, the best way to join them is up to you):

"Starship is designed to be able to launch 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to low Earth orbit, and if it is refueled with propellant via tanker Starships, it will be capable of launching that payload to higher Earth orbits, the Moon, and even Mars."

Thanks a lot! Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Referring to that sentence and to the article, I have this suggestion. Low Earth orbit is often referred to as LEO (from my basic space knowledge), so perhaps in the sentence discussed in the previous bullet, replace "low Earth orbit" with "low Earth orbit (LEO)" and then replace all instances of "low Earth orbit" with "LEO".

I tried to avoid using acronyms whenever I can, since not everyone is a space nerd. "LEO" and "low Earth orbit" meant the same thing, so the second term is more preferable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"Starship might launch from a non-traditional launch pad". If this is a confirmed detail, replace it with "will" or something. If it is not confirmed but especially likely, use something like "will probably launch". If this is not confirmed or especially unlikely, the usage of might is fine.

Confirmed. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"test article" This word is used throughout the article. While it is not wrong, I believe it would sound better if you used "test rocket" or "test booster" or "test spacecraft" rather than this work.

"Test article" is a defacto term in spaceflight. "Test ___" sounds a lot weirder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"After changes to the vehicle's design" It would be nice if the changes were specified, i.e. After changes to the material and fuel of the vehicle". Something like that.

Being more specfic. Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"performed the first successful hop". I think "hop" should be surrounded with quotations, as that would.... I don't really know how to explain it, but I think that will look better.

In progress Need more concensus. This is one of the highly debated topic, whether hop is an official term or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"SN15 on 5 May 2021 became the first test article". Shouldn't the date come first? "On 5 May 2021, SN15 became the first test article".

Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

While we are on the topic of dates, I have a suggestion. Since this article should be written in American English, would it not be better to give dates with the month before the date, like is popularly done in the U.S.? An example would be January 1, 2021. The dd mm yy format (5 May 2021) might confuse American readers, or at the very least obscure clarity and ease of reading. Therefore, I suggest that date formats be changed to mm dd yy format.

Has been bought up in this peer review. The concensus is keep the DD mmm YYYY format. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"...SN20 and booster BN4 are planned for Starship's first orbital flight." I think that "to be used" or "will be used" should be added after the word "planned".

Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

"Starship is projected to be used in upcoming and envisioned space missions" I think the word "expected" is a better pick rather than "projected"

"expected" sounds a bit iffy. Switched to "planned".

I will be expanding this list once all issues related to the lead are resolved. RealKnockout (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Am fixing right now~~ @RealKnockout: Finished! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version, reviewing for prose, and reviewing the Super Heavy and Starship subsection.

Super Heavy and Starship subsection

"Starship's body are made from welded 9 m (30 ft) diameter rings." This is a pretty obvious grammar mistake, Starship's body is made from rings, not are made from rings.