Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins (United States)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [1].

Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins (United States)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... space and coins, which are the two things I've been writing about recently. A bit different from the standard fare of 1930s municipal anniversaries. I wrote this over the course of the past year, as events happened.Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson[edit]

  • Why does the title include "(United States)"? Have other countries issued such coins, or will they in the future?
Yes, several have, including Spain, Canada and Australia. Originally we did not have such a parenthetical. It was moved in response to this discussion--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins were issued by the United States Mint in 2019, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon by Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. is a long sentence.
Yes, but it's mostly the long compound noun doing it. I suppose you could divide at the comma, but I'm not certain it's an improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even as part of proper nouns, I don't like to use the word "Mint" so often as that. I've adjusted the sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • concave (like the inside of a cup) and the reverse is convex (like its outside). I assume people would know "concave" and "convex"; if they don't, appropriate wikilinks can be placed.
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to the release date of January 24, 2019, there was anticipation that like the previous U.S. issue of curved coins, the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame issue, some denominations might quickly sell out. → The coins were released on January 24, 2019. Prior to their release it was anticipated that some denominations might quickly sell out like the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame issue. Just a suggestion.
I've rearranged it a bit following the spirit of what you've said rather than the letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this looks good so far. I'll try to look more into this later and intend to take WikiCup points from this review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the comments so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the All pieces on sale January 24, 2019 and off sale after December 27, 2019 except as noted. Prices increased by $5 on February 25 for all options then on sale. Options including $5 pieces had a sales price that fluctuated based on the market price of gold. can be made small as a footnote. Other than that I don't see anything wrong with this and support this article's promotion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. I'm going to hold the change of font in abeyance as I see comments on the box formatting below.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: FYI if you bold a support in the prose and in the section header it gets counted as two supports by the nominations viewer script; if you remove one of them it would help the automated system. Kees08 (Talk) 20:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08[edit]

Placeholder until I make a full review. Kees08 (Talk) 16:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should this be 'first crewed landing' commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon by Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't support this, and I don't recall the experiment, so it would be good to have a source for that part (I probably just don't remember). Bootprint Penetration Experiment, an exercise in soil mechanics.
I must have blown that one. Source added, also from the 11 ALSJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the source calls the experiment Boot Penetration Soil Experiment (BPSE)
Changed. I seem to have gotten that from the ALSJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change to this but leaving to your discretion About 13 minutes following the taking of the bootprint photographs,
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colon after distributed? would be distributed half to the
I would not think the colon would help much.
Yeah I think I agree now Kees08 (Talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo was taken July 21 UTC right? Congress required that the reverse be a "close-up of the famous 'Buzz Aldrin on the Moon' photograph taken July 20, 1969
Congress is ever parochial. I will drop a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an idea on how best to source the footnote? Plainly the entire EVA took place on the 21st UTC, and I can source that to Orloff & Harland's timeline, but there may be a better way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First you can include the law as a source if you want, I found it while working on this. Ctrl F for AS11-40-5903 at ALSJ. It lists it being taken at 4:14 UTC, which is 12:14 am EST. This doesn't match the NASA date of July 20. I think you can create a footnote that says something like 'According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, the photo was taken at 12:14 am EST (4:14 UTC) July 21.' with a source to the ALSJ that I listed. You can source it/write it other ways, but that covers both the launch time zone and UTC, and covers the language of the bill and ALSJ's timeline. Kees08 (Talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daylight savings time would make it five hours, I suppose and bring it back to the 20th.--07:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, stupid daylight savings. So I suppose it is July 21 UTC and July 20 EDT. Should have a footnote of some sort, your call on how to do it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar Module is linked earlier In the reflection on the visor may be seen the Lunar Module Eagle
Fixed.
  • Think this should be a comma instead of a colon because of the verb that comes after the colon Apollo 11 astronauts: Mark Armstrong, Andy Aldrin
Done.
  • Instead of 'included above' have you considered merging the cells? If the table was sortable I would not advise it, but since it is not, it could make it easier to read (I was a bit confused at first glance)
I don't know how to do that. This is a table I borrowed from somewhere for United States Bicentennial coinage and have adapted as needed since. If you could demonstrate, I would fix it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is using rowspan as demonstrated at Help:Table#Combined_use_of_COLSPAN_and_ROWSPAN. I can give it a shot later unless you beat me to it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it done; you can revert it if you do not like it. Seems more clear to me though. Kees08 (Talk) 19:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always a comma after the year right? January 24, 2019 at 12 noon EST through
  • Same question/comment n May 4, 2019 with the launch
  • This had an en dash earlier in the section; not sure which is right but should be consistent: 2019-S proof clad
  • Same packaging a 2019-S Apollo 11 U.S. half dollar with a curved
  • Same date question The Mint did not report weekly sales figures after November 3, 2019 due to the
All the dates in text you cite above now have commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The date/mintmark thing is fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there is a free record of the bills? I found HR 2726, I assume the two that are linked to ProQuest could be similarly found.
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just now realized that 400,000 were minted because there were approximately 400,000 working on the Apollo Program. Unless this is misleading me. If that's true it should probably be included if RS's exist.
400K is the standard authorization for silver dollars. The American Legion one had the same authorization.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the citations are from a couple of websites, which I suppose isn't inherently a problem, but I remember collectSPACE had a lot of coverage on the coins, perhaps those citations would provide useful information and could be used?
I added something from the cite you mention. I tried to minimize/avoid collectSpace as I had gotten some flak over that website re the postal covers incident. Coin World is the established weekly numismatic newspaper, and the others had good coverage of the weekly Mint sales report. I'm looking through the collectSPACE articles to see if there's anything else to add.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problems with those numismatic sources for quality; just wanted to point out that there were space-focused publications that could be useful to use. I assume most of the coin articles you write do not have a theme or dedicated media base like that, wanted to make sure you thought of it if you had not. No worries if you think the space citations are worthless. Kees08 (Talk) 20:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading through them. I don't think they are worthless but as you know part of FAC is giving reviewers less to complain about!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added salient points from two of the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

As usual I am spending more time than I should on images. Hoping for both Wehwalt's opinion on inclusion and Nikkimaria's opinion on copyright. HouseLive records the House of Representatives, and HR 2726 (warning, huge video!) is about a four minute segment of a house proceeding. HouseLive's terms say Proceedings of the House of Representatives, including any recording of such proceedings, may not be used for any political purpose or in any commercial advertisement, and may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program. I think because this restriction is placed by the House (from Committee on Ethics: Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1). In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office., it falls under House Rules and would therefore be PD.

It also looks like videos have been uploaded to Commons:Category:United States House of Representatives and Commons:Category:Videos by the United States House of Representatives.

So Wehwalt, if I downloaded, clipped, and uploaded the file, would you want it included? I think it would go nicely in the proposal and legislation section. Plus, you get to see Posey's JFK impersonation. And Nikkimaria, do you agree with the copyright assessment? Kees08 (Talk) 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: The video is uploaded at File:50th anniversary moon landing coin motion.webm. I think it would go nicely in that section, do you have any issues adding it? Kees08 (Talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. I'm sorry to be some slow, my laptop died while I was traveling and I had to rely on my tablet and phone until Sunday night. I'm catching up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I am having tablet issues as well (Microsoft won't fix a unit they shipped me with a hardware defect. Surface Pros are garbage). I can add that in there. Kees08 (Talk) 20:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the reverse photo and put an image from the unveiling in? The Mint says all right reserved on those photographs, but as far as I know that is not right. You could move it down to striking, which is where it is discussed anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 16:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC) That's all the feedback that I have. Let me know your thoughts. Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your argument here. The Commons guideline called "house rules" refers to cases where the facility restricts photos or video. For example, if you personally were to go in and take a picture of a house proceeding and then release it as PD that would be fine. However, the creator in this case is imposing the restriction, and while it's certainly possible they're doing so only because of the committee ruling you cite, I don't think we have room to argue that their restriction is illegitimate. Now, given that as you note there are many videos already on Commons of house proceedings, possibly there's been a discussion there around this issue previously, or some reason I may be missing why the stated restriction is taken to not apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will research into it more, I was unable to find anything the first time. It sounded like a case of the NASA Flickr account that posts photos labeled as NC, which we disregard since it is a government work and that restriction can't be placed. Kees08 (Talk) 18:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query posted at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#HouseLive_videos Kees08 (Talk) 19:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I clear to add something from the Flikr page in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you can upload and tag as US-GOV, we do the literal exact thing with NASA's Flickr. Kees08 (Talk) 22:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is excessive detail for this article Those two bootprints were not disturbed by the astronauts' subsequent activity, and are visible in photographs taken from the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle prior to liftoff.
I don't see why. It establishes that the subject of the coin's obverse still exists, unless wiped out by the liftoff or something since.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way we can avoid direct quoting on this? deemed "one of the most famous photos in history: a portrait of Aldrin, his gold-plated sun visor reflecting the photographer and the Lunar Module, the flag, and the moon’s horizon against an unimaginably black sky."
I'd rather keep the quote. Because there are those who hate words like "iconic" and "famous". I think the quote establishes this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Lead
  • Any reason there isn't an infobox?
The multiple coins and specifications make it difficult. I'm following the practice I did in Panama-Pacific commemorative coin issue.
We're short on help. I probably hadn't come up with the idea of gradual writing of a current-event article.
Background
  • by the end of the decade — Unless I'm missing something, this part isn't supported by the citation. Maybe cite to the speech as well?
Oops. Source added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a bulk sample — of soil?
Regolith technically, but yes, will add something.
  • the eighth[4] — Just confirming that this source is used for everything after the first clause of the first sentence in this paragraph.
Yes, it is merely to establish that this was the eighth of eight photos taken by Armstrong in that sequence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal and legislation
  • The source for the first paragraph is somewhat confusing, and I think wrong when it says the proposal was included in the 2015 report. The 2015 report is here; unless I'm missing something, there's no mention of the proposal. The 2014 report, on the other hand, includes it. I would add that as a second source to the paragraph and fix accordingly.
Done that and changed to "annual report".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was danger that another commemorative coin bill might pass instead — Any idea what one?
I've deleted that--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On December 5, the last day of the House session,[6] — The source doesn't seem to back this up
Sorry, I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • uncirculated and in proof condition — What's the difference between the two? Perhaps link them to glossary of numismatics?
  • Tom Uram, also a CCAC member, stated that the bill could have been improved by allowing a different design for each denomination, but that in many cases coin legislation is written by people in Washington who do not know what collectors want. — Seems a little bit out of place here; even though it mentions legislation, it's more of a qualitative assessment.
That's true, but where else would you put it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point—when I made the comment I was probably assuming that there was a section at the end about collecting/reception, where is where this would naturally fit. You might be able to spin out the final paragraph of "Conclusion of sales" into such a section, and add this part here. But that's not an issue for FAC.
Obverse design selection
  • I'm confused by the second paragraph. Were there three meetings: one of the CFA, one of the CCAC, and one of both?
One of the CCAC, then the CFA, then the jury which was composed of some of the members of each, on three consecutive days. I've reworked it slightly to put the CCAC first as I've looked into it and they were the first to meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added, from the original source, though certainly I have no problem with Esylum.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, and the following section, feel out of order. This section is about what happened from May 2017 to October 2018, and the next section is largely about what happened in and before June 2017. Here's a suggestion (since undone) for how to handle: link.
That point had been troubling me. I've reordered it, broadly following your concept, but with the text ordered differently.
Design
  • You're probably sick of hearing me say this, but what about a footnote listing the other five designs featuring alive people? (I won't hold it against you if you would rather not!)
I'm inclined to agree on this one. Added--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking
  • The smaller silver dollar would cost $54.95 for the proof coin and $51.95 in uncirculated — The mint isn't given here, but it is for the others.
Because the striking at Philadelphia is mentioned earlier in the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • enhanced reverse proof condition — What's this?
Now you're asking something! I will look for an explanation.
  • Prices for the gold pieces — When were these set? Earlier in the paragraph, it says the gold prices were to be set at a later date.
Somewhere between the 18th and the 23rd. The Mint's web page on this says they do it weekly. I'd use the date if.I had it but don't think there's any great loss if not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued sales
  • Sales of the half dollar set reached 94,119 by February 10 and it showed as unavailable on the Mint's website. However, this was not a sellout of the Apollo 11 half dollar, but only of the Kennedy piece ... By February 21, the proof half dollar set had sold out entirely. — This first makes it sound as if the Kennedy piece was sold out by February 10, and then says that it sold out 11 days later. I've tinkered with the language a fair deal and added qualified the February 10 date as a "forthcoming sellout," but you may want to check the language to confirm that it is correct.
    I've played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one point you say 99,997 sets sold, then you say 99,998 sets.
All the sets were sold, or at least reserved, the Mint sometimes has trouble reconciling the orders, a coin may be returned as undeliverable, let's say. They must have been able to deal with one such issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section—particularly the sales figures, the part about sending some of the coins into space, and the Australia/Spain/Canada paragraph—feels a little bit like a chronology that was written as events happened, and lacks some cohesion as a result. It's not a huge issue, and I'm not sure what the solution would be—maybe including the weekly sales figures in extra rows in the chart below, and adding a subsection such as "Other promotions" to deal with the rest—but just something to think about.
Of course it is to some extent written as we went along, and so I take your point. But the mintage figures are taken from logical (end of June, end of September) waypoints along the way. I won't say it is the most elegant prose but I think it gets the job done and gets useful information out there. I will keep looking at it and take suggestions on board as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion of sales
  • identical mintage limits — for just the half eagle, or also for the half dollar and smaller dollar?
All three, and I've made that clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the final paragraph all that exists for reviews/retrospective discussion of the coin?
All I've found anyway, and I've been looking. No new sales figures, thus no commentary on same.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • 12, 13: Retrieval dates not needed
Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: This could do with significantly more information. A decent rule of thumb for a citation is whether, in the absence of a link, it still gives enough information that someone could find the source. This one likely falls short.
Good point; I've added the title of the bill. I ran a google search of the title and a link from congress.gov is the first result (this article is the second).--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Switched.
  • 27: The author is Joel Crabtree.
Credited.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, comments above. Seriously cool coin—I really like the design with the boot. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do too. OK, I think I've covered everything. Sorry for the delay, laptop issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Usernameunique, did you have anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Ian Rose. Adding my support. I've also added a source review above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as ever for the detailed review. I've done the items in the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I missed it Usernameunique but are you signing off on source reliability as well as formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Ian Rose, I wasn't clear about that. I've just taken a second look, and am signed off on source reliability as well as formatting. The only source that caught my eye was Headley 2020, but this is used for only a minor point in a footnote (the inclusion of which I suggested), and the wikilinks in the footnote reinforce the point. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Kees08 posted some comments about images above, but I'm not sure that it was intended as a full image review, so (hopefully not stepping on anyone's toes here) I'd like to do an image review.

All of the images appear to be properly licensed and captioned. But some queries about the source links for the images below:

  • I got an error for the source link for Apollo 11 gold reverse.jpeg.
    I found smaller versions of this image but not the full-size version in the file; I will let Wehwalt deal with the US Mint's image storage. Kees08 (Talk) 21:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that to the Mint's image library page for the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I see you had two edits, and you changed the link to one that works, and then likely accidentally (?) back to the original link that didn't work. I've changed it back to one that works. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It works if you click through from from the Mint's website. Very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source link for Aldrin Apollo 11 head.jpg seems to have moved. Should it be updated?
    Fixed, though I would recommend cropping the unedited version instead of the highly edited PR version File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also does AldrinFootprint.jpg need an online source (right now it just says NASA)?
    Added, though File:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg is an unedited version, which could be cropped if desired. Kees08 (Talk) 21:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it wasn't a proper image review. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issues above have been resolved. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review and to Kees08 for helping out.==Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the name of the article changed during the FAC. I figured we might as well deal with anything that needs to be done at the end, and I doubt if it's unprecedented.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, now that my attention's been drawn to that, was going to ask if any other countries had 'em and, if so, would they be considered primary... Hawkeye7, pls remind me, do you/FACbot prefer we tweak everything to the new name here and in the FAC list or can it all be dealt with as is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We changed the name of SOLRAD 1 in the middle of the FAC (from Solrad 1 to SOLRAD 1) and left the FAC page at the old name (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Solrad_1/archive1). Based on that, nothing should break, but you never know. I say live life on the wild side! Or wait for Hawkeye. Kees08 (Talk) 01:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Any reason I shouldn't just promote this? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be okay. I will be watching. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Apollo_11_50th_Anniversary_commemorative_coins_(United_States)/archive1&oldid=953157595"