Talk:Pythom

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 17 April 2017 by reviewer Boomer Vial (talk · contribs).

Spaceflight

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Irrelevant notes + general feel of a company website[edit]

The History section notes that many of the industry professionals who criticized the safety procedures during the March 2022 hold down test are employed by Pythom's potential competitors. While this is partially true (one of the louder voices works for Blue Origin, who is in the heavy lift market with their New Glenn rocket and therefore does not compete with Pythom), I feel this is irrelevant to the discussion.

Additionally, this just kind of feels like a company website? There's a lot of weird and unnecessary detail (see the part about the Space Cowboys group doubling in size since their investment in Pythom) that seems like it's there to attract investors instead of just a straight retelling of the facts. SpaceAlex1 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to view this as objectively as possible, and I do not share your opinion on the relevancy of the competition part. The specific person you mentioned from Blue Origin based his criticism on the false perception that Pythom was using MMH and NTO as their propellants, when in reality they were using nitric acid and furfuryl. I think it’s important to point out that there may be bias behind this criticism, since a lot of it has actually been proven false (perhaps info about this should be added?)

When it comes to the investor part, I think it would be acceptable to remove the part where it says that they have doubled in size, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is irrelevant. I’d be more than happy to review any more instances where you feel as though there are weird and unnecessary details that are not presenting facts. I have read the entire article twice and cannot find any such instances. I may of course be wrong, but these are my two cents. JMT443 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged as advertising?[edit]

This is my first time ever commenting on a Wikipedia article so I'm sorry if this is not the right way to go about it. I was reading through different space companies articles when I saw that this one for Pythom Space was flagged as a potential advertisement. To me this warning does not make any sense, because I cannot see anything in the article that's written like "an advertisement". I think this warning should be reviewed by the community. What does everyone else think? ShuttleS4 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]