Elon Musk is a man who makes rockets and spaceships. He thought of making his rocket, called Starship, have big metal wings like a dragon from a show called Game of Thrones. But he decided not to do it because it would be too heavy and hot to handle. Read from source...

1. The article title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Elon Musk had a change of heart or faced some opposition to the idea, when in fact he simply recognized its limitations and challenges. A more accurate title would be "Elon Musk Abandons Idea For 'Dragon Wings' On Starship Due To Technical Issues".
2. The article fails to provide any evidence or sources for Elon Musk's claim that the wings would add too much mass and complexity. This is a crucial detail for readers to understand the rationale behind the decision, but it is omitted in favor of generating clicks and interest.
3. The article relies heavily on social media posts as primary sources, which are often unreliable and subject to change or deletion. It also mentions Musk's clarification of his seriousness level, which is irrelevant and distracting from the main topic. A better approach would be to use official statements or documents from SpaceX or credible media outlets as sources.
4. The article unnecessarily references Game of Thrones, a popular TV series that has no direct connection or relevance to the story. This seems to be an attempt to appeal to a broader audience and create a catchy association, but it does not add any value or insight to the article.
5. The article uses informal language and slang terms, such as "ditched", "too hot and heavy to handle", and "giant stainless steel dragon wings". This detracts from the professionalism and credibility of the article, and may confuse or alienate some readers who are not familiar with these expressions. A more formal and precise tone would be more appropriate for a news article.
6. The article does not address any potential benefits or advantages of the "dragon wings" design, nor does it mention any alternative solutions or designs that SpaceX may be exploring. This leaves readers with an incomplete and biased perspective on the issue, and does not encourage critical thinking or discussion.