Talk:Starlink/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Military Satellites Section
I removed the paragraphs in the Military satellites section that were blatantly wrong even though they seem well sourced (if you read the sources they dont quite say what is repeated here on Wiki) and that are speculation about the overall NDSA system which has no relationship to STARLINK itself those sections said:
- "The NDSA will be composed of seven layers and mirrors concepts from the former Brilliant Pebbles system. Cost overruns had led to cancellation of these earlier programs but SpaceX and other reusable launch systems have mitigated concerns according to a 2019 Congressional Budget Office analysis.[1] The new constellation also leverages Starlink and other commercial technology development to reduce costs, such as free-space optical laser terminals in a mesh network for secure command and control.[2]
- While much of the program is classified, it broadly envisions layers of LEO satellites, some containing space-based interceptors to track and neutralize perceived threats such as ballistic missiles. Captain Joshua Daviscourt, USAF indicated the satellite constellations could include hypersonic re-entry vehicles or micro-missiles fielding pods of 100 interceptors onboard each satellite.[3] Previous National Research Council studies show space-based interceptors could kinetically impact a target within 2 minutes of initiating a de-orbit.[4][5] The Union of Concerned Scientists however warns that these weapon systems staged around the Earth would escalate tensions with Russia and China and called the project "fundamentally destabilizing".[6] "
To start in the first paragraph, NDSA (SDA Seven Layer Dip) is only tangentially related to Brilliant Pebbles and only then because both systems were for Missile Warning. Brilliant Pebbles was Missile DEFENSE which included kinetic interceptors and lasers. SDA system is only warning and communication. The part about it being cost effective to do because of SpaceX is kinda right, but not really because launch is a minority cost in such a system. The part about using Starlink tech/sats is correct, but covered in the other paragraphs.
The second paragraph I removed because it is not related at all to SDA and physically impossible (as in from Physics) regardless what the sources imply. While in theory you could put missile interceptors on satellites speculation of a design by a Capt doesnt make it so, and said source is only notional not related at all to SDA. Also hypersonic reentry vehicles that could strike in 2 mins would need somewhere on the order of 16-24 km/s of deltaV which is 2-3x what you need to get into orbit, and thus would need large rockets on the order of orbital class launch vehicles, not small starlink sized sats.
So for the two reasons above, I removed those two paragraphs. the remaining paragraphs seem to convey the point of the Deluxe Bus Spacecraft without engaging in needless speculation on the end goals of the SDA constellation which is not what the page is about. WeylandsWings (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- oh also the key source in these two paragraphs (the Capt Daviscourt source) very clearly states "The views and opinions expressed or implied in WBY are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government or their international equivalents." Which further shows it is just an opinion / theory piece, not what is actually happening or relevant to Starlink WeylandsWings (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree the micro-missile reference appears speculative and the NRC study is kind of irrelevant. Here is a shot at removing speculation and keeping to SDA website, but still including other references context/NPOV:
- "The NDSA will be composed of seven layers with specific functions: data transport, battle management, missile tracking, custody/weapons targeting, navigation/PNT, deterrence, and ground support.[7] Historically, spaced-based missile defense concepts (e.g., Brilliant Pebbles) were expensive, but reusable launch systems have mitigated costs according to a 2019 Congressional Budget Office analysis.[8] NSDA leverages existing commercial satellite bus development such as Starlink to reduce costs, including free-space optical laser terminals for a secure command and control mesh network.[9] The 2019 Missile Defense Review notes spaced-based sensing enables "improved tracking and potentially targeting of advanced threats, including HGVs and hypersonic cruise missiles".[10] " However, the Union of Concerned Scientists warns developments could escalate tensions with Russia and China and called the project "fundamentally destabilizing".[11] "
- WeylandsWings, what is the "Deluxe Bus Spacecraft" is that the name of SDA satellites? Couldn't find that in citations.
- -Knilrats (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another decent reference to consider: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/IF11623.pdf
- Knilrats (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would be okay with that reduced scope. I still kinda think it crosses over into topics that arent directly related to Starlink itself, but as there is no dedicated page of Deluxe Bus, I can see the argument for it to be on this page, even if SpaceX only got the award for Tranche 0 and might not get an award for Tranche 1 of the SDA constellation. Deluxe Bus is the name of the starlink derived bus for Hosted Payloads. and yeah that FAS repost of the Congressional Research Service is pretty good as a source, but i would recommend going with the CRS website instead of FAS https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45811/25 (I couldnt find the exec summary that FAS has for the issue)
- re the name of Deluxe Bus, I can try to find some sources, but I have seen the name in Job postings for SpaceX and (Original Source) was used as the term when I was applying and interviewing for jobs in the Special Programs Dept at SpaceX and was not covered by a NDA. WeylandsWings (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- next time I should spend 1 more min searching. CRS Link to the report you linked from FAS is https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11623 which is a much more reliable source. WeylandsWings (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks that's a much better source. Also confusing is the CRS reports have many with same title, but different author/date/topic. I see the job postings for Deluxe Bus. Such postings are sometimes used as a source.. not sure if sufficient, maybe worth incorporating. Knilrats (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Costs of Implementing Recommendations of the 2019 Missile Defense Review". Congressional Budget Office. 1 January 2021. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ Machi, Vivienne (1 June 2021). "US Military Places a Bet on LEO for Space Security". Space Development Agency. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ Daviscourt, Joshua (28 June 2021). "COTS and Space-based Missile Defense". Air University (Au). United States Air Force. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
- ^ "An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives". National Research Council. 5 November 2012. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ Barton, David K.; Falcone, Roger; Kleppner, Daniel; Lamb, Frederick K.; Lau, Ming K.; Lynch, Harvey L.; Moncton, David; Montague, David; Mosher, David E.; Priedhorsky, William; Tigner, Maury; Vaughan, David R. (5 October 2004). "Report of the American Physical Society Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense: Scientific and Technical Issues". Reviews of Modern Physics. 76 (3): S1–S424. Bibcode:2004RvMP...76S...1B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.S1. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ "Space-based Missile Defense". Union of Concerned Scientists. 30 August 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ "'Warfighter Council' Guides Capability Development for Space Development Agency". U.S. Department of Defense. 4 March 2021. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
- ^ "Costs of Implementing Recommendations of the 2019 Missile Defense Review". Congressional Budget Office. 1 January 2021. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ Machi, Vivienne (1 June 2021). "US Military Places a Bet on LEO for Space Security". Space Development Agency. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ "2019 Missile Defense Review" (PDF). Office of the Secretary of Defense. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
- ^ "Space-based Missile Defense". Union of Concerned Scientists. 30 August 2018. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
Picture
The pic "Starlink in Tübingen, Germany" is absolutely not helpful. Even with magnifier you cant see anything on the preview pic. crop or remove. the subtitle is wrong anyway, this is not "starlink", which is a brand, but obviously a satellite chain from the first batch. please clarify! 47.67.195.3 (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Starship Launches
@Mfb Instead of replacing
- '... launch on Starship, an under-development rocket of SpaceX that will launch 400 satellites at a time.'
with
- '... launch on Starship, an under-development rocket of SpaceX with a much larger payload capability.'
would it not be better to have something like:
- Starlink satellites are also planned to launch on Starship, an under-development rocket of SpaceX. The initial announcement included plans to launch 400 Starlink (1.0) satellites at a time. Revised plans call for Starship to only launch the much larger Starlink v2.0.
AmigaClone (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I like that option. Maybe "to launch fewer but larger" in some way to make clearer that 400 won't happen. --mfb (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer "prototype" to "under-development". Shorter and simpler. Nelsonblaha (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Starlink used on Ukrainian Kamikaze Boats
Could be included in military section with a picture of one of the boats clearly showing Starlink terminal Reference: https://www.historynet.com/usv-weapon-ukraine-war/ 98.97.140.28 (talk) 98.97.140.28 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Availability
According to the Starlink map page [1] there are a few countries that have Starlink available that are not listed in the "Availability and regulatory approval by country" table. E.g. the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. It will take some time to cross-reference and find them all but I'll do what I can. Also, concerning Puerto Rico, since it's a territory of the US, should it have an entry or not?War (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like France has a few of its island territories listed in the same column. If we follow this pattern, Puerto Rico should be added to the US entry.War (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't see the purpose or logic of the Canada regulatory history example to exemplify that factors other than ITU approval can affect Starlink deployment. I don't think this needs to be stated, neither Canada's regulatory history, which belongs in #History. I propose that the whole thing comes out per WP:NOTNEWS. The example doesn't work anyway. Nelsonblaha (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the communication signal regulations in various nation states—which is actually a key determining factor in whether rural internet service is available or not inside any particular country's borders—is actually quite relevant to Starlink. The heavy tie-in of legacy communication providers with the political apparatus in various states is a key pacing factor in limiting the spread of this technology to the global rural communities. The Canada info would just appear to be an example of that, and not a bad one at all, as Canada worked through the political maze in just a few months, becoming an early country with Starlink after the US. N2e (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
References
More sources: Starlink now in use in Antarctica ++
Looks like the recent launches of Starlinks on various polar orbits have now enabled internet service in Antartica. The Center for Oldest Ice Exploration reports: Despite 30 knot winds at the Allan Hills, Antarctica, where ice cores up to 2,700,000 years old have been found, @SpaceX Starlink continues to give the @NSF-supported COLDEX team unprecedented connectivity! — N2e (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Despite the headline, this article from major space media provides very good summary info for the article on Starlink takeup, impact, and modes. "Starlink in general has been reshaping the perception of satellite broadband from just a technology of last resort to one that can bring high speeds and new capabilities in places that previously had little to no connectivity options.", SpaceNews, 12 December 2022. N2e (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Constellation design and status
Any suggestions for dealing with the FCC approving 7500 of the 30,000 proposed Gen2 Starlink constellation? AmigaClone (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Is Starlink a constellation or an ISP?
Starlink is a full fledged Network/Service, not just a constellation. This is like calling T-Mobile US a "group of antennas" just because that's part of their infrastructure, in my opinion. Shane04040404 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Starlink is an internet access service by SpaceX using a satellite constellation"? The satellite constellation is the defining element of the system. Local antennas are very common, but only one operator has 3000 satellites in space. --mfb (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Too much confusion on Generation 2 versus Version 2
This article and a lot of editors seem to be confusing Gen2/Generation 2/second-generation with the concept of a Version 2 of the satellites. These are two seperate things. SpaceX could launch version 1/1.5 satellites to a second-generation portion of the constellation. The generations are regulatory, not technical, is the key factor. Ergzay (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
First Generation
Will the First Generation still be completed? 84.62.20.61 (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Probably yes, maybe no. The committed completion dates in the table are FCC imposed deadlines to deploy 50% and 100% of the licensed satellites. If SpaceX does not change the license they have to complete Gen1 constellation. But before the final March 2027 deadline SpaceX can apply to launch gen2 satellites in gen1 orbits and commit to deploy 4,408 gen1 and gen2 satellites in gen1 orbits by March 2027.
- As for gen1 phase2 aka V-band satellites, no, SpaceX no longer plans to launch them. See the article. — Sbsail talk 08:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Group 3 Polar orbit satellites
In the chart of the orbitals shells, there is a row for Group 3 at 97.6°. Then, two rows below it is an unnamed row, also at 97.6°. Should not this second one be added to the first? War (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- In the original 4408 Starlink satellite constellation group 3 and the one currently blank in this article originally called shell 5 had the same orbital inclination and altitude. Since there is a different number of satellites in each orbital plane, there is need but to keep the two groups separate.
- I suspect the name of this group was removed to lessen confusion with the "Group 5" of the partially approved Starlink Gen 2 constellation. At this point, only the FCC had approved SpaceX launching only 7500 of the proposed 30,000 satellites in the Gen 2 constellation. These satellites are part of what is described in the documents presented to the FCC as Group 5, Group 6, and Group 7. AmigaClone (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Customers
This article should be incorporated into the article. - https://www.reuters.com/technology/spacexs-starlink-falls-short-growth-expectations-despite-revenue-surge-wsj-2023-09-13/ 2001:9E8:CAD5:D00:B524:EFBC:63EE:1377 (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Future availability by country
Tracking to look out for future country availiability based on Starlink website https://www.starlink.com/map
| Continent | Country/Territory | Starting Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Africa |  Burundi
|
Starting Q2 2024 | |
| Africa |  Gambia
|
Starting Q2 2024 | |
| Africa |  Tanzania
|
Starting Q2 2024 | |
| Asia |  Oman
|
Starting Q2 2024 | |
| Asia |  Qatar
|
Starting Q2 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Federated States of Micronesia
|
Starting Q2 2024 | |
| South America |  Argentina
|
Starting Q2 2024 | |
| Africa |  Angola
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Africa |  Botswana
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Africa |  Ghana
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Africa |  Lesotho
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Africa |  Madagascar
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Africa |  Zimbabwe
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Asia |  Bahrain
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Asia |  Jordan
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Asia |  Papua New Guinea
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| North America |  Curaçao
|
Starting Q3 2024 | Subdivision of  Netherlands
|
| South America |  Uruguay
|
Starting Q3 2024 | |
| Africa |  Mauritania
|
Starting Q4 2024 | |
| Africa |  Uganda
|
Starting Q4 2024 | |
| Asia |  Timor-Leste
|
Starting Q4 2024 | |
| Africa |  Burkina Faso
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Chad
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Equatorial Guinea
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Gabon
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Liberia
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Ivory Coast
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Namibia
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Niger
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  São Tomé and Príncipe
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Senegal
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Togo
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Tunisia
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Azerbaijan
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Bhutan
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Indonesia
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Kazakhstan
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Kyrgyzstan
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Mongolia
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Nepal
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  South Korea
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Sri Lanka
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Tajikistan
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Turkmenistan
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Asia |  Yemen
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Europe |  Albania
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Europe |  Montenegro
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| North America |  Antigua and Barbuda
|
Starting in 2024 | Subdivision of Netherlands
|
| North America |  Montserrat
|
Starting in 2024 | Subdivision of  United Kingdom
|
| Oceania |  Fiji
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Marshall Islands
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Nauru
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Palau
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Samoa
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Solomon Islands
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Tonga
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Tuvalu
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Oceania |  Vanuatu
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| South America |  Bolivia
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| South America |  Guyana
|
Starting in 2024 | |
| Africa |  Cameroon
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Cape Verde
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Comoros
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Democratic Republic of the Congo
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Republic of the Congo
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Egypt
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Mauritius
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Morocco
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Africa |  Seychelles
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  Armenia
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  Bangladesh
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  Brunei
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  Cambodia
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  Kuwait
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  Laos
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  Uzbekistan
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Europe |  Serbia
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| North America |  Aruba
|
Starting in 2025 | Subdivision of Netherlands
|
| North America |  Belize
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| North America |  British Virgin Islands
|
Starting in 2025 | Subdivision of United Kingdom
|
| North America |  Dominica
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| North America |  Grenada
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| North America |  Saint Kitts and Nevis
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| North America |  Saint Lucia
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| North America |  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| North America |  Turks and Caicos Islands
|
Starting in 2025 | Subdivision of United Kingdom
|
| Oceania |  Kiribati
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Oceania |  Wallis and Futuna
|
Starting in 2025 | Subdivision of France
|
| South America |  Suriname
|
Starting in 2025 | |
| Asia |  India
|
Pending regulatory approval | |
| Asia |  Pakistan
|
Pending regulatory approval | |
| Asia |  Saudi Arabia
|
Pending regulatory approval | |
| Asia |  Thailand
|
Pending regulatory approval | |
| Asia |  United Arab Emirates
|
Pending regulatory approval | |
| Asia |  Vietnam
|
Pending regulatory approval | |
| Europe |  Turkey
|
Pending regulatory approval | |
| Africa |  Algeria
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Central African Republic
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Djibouti
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Ethiopia
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Eritrea
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Libya
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Mali
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Somalia
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  South Africa
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  South Sudan
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Africa |  Sudan
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Asia |  Iraq
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Asia |  Israel
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Asia |  Lebanon
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Asia |  Myanmar
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Asia |  Palestine
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Asia |  Taiwan
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Europe |  Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Europe |  Kosovo
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Europe |  Åland Islands
|
Service date is unknown at this time | Subdivsion of  Finland
|
| Europe |  Faroe Islands
|
Service date is unknown at this time | Subdivision of  Denmark
|
| Europe |  Greenland
|
Service date is unknown at this time | Subdivision of Denmark
|
| Europe |  North Cyprus
|
Service date is unknown at this time | Subdivision within  Cyprus
|
| North America |  Cayman Islands
|
Service date is unknown at this time | Subdivision of United Kingdom
|
| North America |  Nicaragua
|
Service date is unknown at this time | |
| Oceania |  French Polynesia
|
Service date is unknown at this time | Subdivision of France
|
| Oceania |  New Caledonia
|
Service date is unknown at this time | Subdivision of France
|
| Asia |  Afghanistan
|
unknown | |
| Asia |  China
|
unknown | |
| Asia |  Iran
|
unknown | |
| Asia |  North Korea
|
unknown | |
| Asia |  Syria
|
unknown | |
| Europe |  Belarus
|
unknown | |
| Europe |  Russia
|
unknown | |
| North America |  Cuba
|
unknown | |
| South America |  Venezuela
|
unknown |
Rosswi88 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- The expected dates have changed greatly recently. SpaceX cannot be trusted with the estimates. — Sbsail talk 04:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Removal of sourced content
Just wanted to bring this up since someone reverted the edits I made, and I just readded it as I feel very strongly that it should be included. Nobody's challenging the sources themselves, and the justification given in the revert didn't make sense to me. I didn't see a good justification according to our content removal guidelines as to why the content should be removed. See guidelines/etiquette on content removal for reasons for removal, listing them below for why I think it should be included.
1.) Unsourced Information: This is not unsourced information, I have three reliable sources cited; there is no serious issue of lack of sources. See the following 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I could keep going but I hope my point there was made. It was widely reported on by reliable sources.
2.) Inaccurate information: This is not inaccurate information. It has been widely reported on.
3.) Irrelevant information: Not irrelevant, it's relevant given it follows Musks's projections on Starlinks presented in 2017.
4.) Inappropriate content for Wikipedia: I don't see how you can call that inappropriate, though I'm open to good faith arguments.
My issue is that if the revenue projections are noteworthy enough to include in the lede, then so is the widely reported follow up to those projections showing that they were VERY optimistic and not at all what was actually achieved. Not including this would be misleading to our readers. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see there have been no further revisions, I'll give this a couple more days and archive it unless anyone has any comments. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Chuckstablers: I reviewed the additions you made and I don't see any issue with them. As you note, they are very well-sourced. - Dyork (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good, just wanted to make sure somebody else chimed in. Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)