Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 15 postal covers incident/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 [1].

Apollo 15 postal covers incident[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an unfortunate incident during the space program. Since its previous appearance here, it's had a rename, a GA review, a copyedit by the GOCE, several philatelic sources added, and the extent to which it relies on government sources diminished. I haven't tried to eliminate them though because although the Winick and the Faries sources follow the transcripts, they fuzz on detail I'd like to see in here, but in combination with the original sources should eliminate any OR concerns. As I said before, I am trying to be very careful on BLP issues as Colonel Scott and Colonel Worden are alive. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

  • the astronauts of Apollo 15, who carried about 400 unauthorized postal covers ... One hundred were sent to Eiermann (and passed on to Sieger); the remaining covers were divided among the astronauts ... Worden had made arrangements to carry 144 additional covers — How many covers? It starts out sounding like 400, but ends sounding like 544.
I see your comment below. I'll respond to both together (I want to look at the article and think about it)
I've added it to the lede.
  • that the Herrick covers were being sold — Is the passive voice (which I don't mind personally) intentional, i.e., was Herrick not the (only) one selling the Herrick covers?
It mentions that he placed some on commission later in the article, so yes.
  • The Sieger matter became generally known in June 1972. — How?
Clarified.
  • One of the covers given to Sieger sold for over $50,000 in 2014. — Surely that isn't the only one that has sold?
It's the highest price. Nine have now come to auction, undoubtedly others have been sold privately.
Posting just the highest price seems a bit misrepresentative. The market may have shifted between 2008 ($15,000 for one of the 298) and 2014 ($50,000 for one of the 100), but I think it would be better to state a range, or at least note that it is the highest.
I see it as more as highlighting the exceptional over the relatively ordinary. I find it is best not to have things in a way that you have to update when another cover is sold. Do we say "highest as of 2018"? I could say something like "highest auction price to that point" if you like.
Either way works. I get what you mean. My concern is that Wikipedia is full of both ordinary and extra ordinary things, and sometimes it is unclear which is which.

Background

  • Cancelling them became a major duty of the employees of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) post office on space mission launch days. — Perhaps a sentence or clause here explaining why collectors like(d) postal covers to be cancelled
Maybe I'm wrong, as postal mail is going out of style, but isn't it self evident the collectors would want a postmark of the date and place of launch?
  • they were not offered for sale until 2018. — How about a footnote with sale prices?
I just included it in the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Die proofs, perforated by hand were used rather than actual stamps. — This could easily stand being put this in the main text.
Possibly, but what I really want is a very brief summary of Apollo 15, with a nod to the philatelic angle, so I don't have to mention it much later. This slows things down and isn't greatly relevant to the covers this article is really about: the 400 and the 144.
  • Scott catalogue numbers 1434–1435. — At this risk of slight redundancy, it might be worth including the catalogue as a reference here.
The use of Scott catalogue numbers is pretty widespread, including on the Internet. I don't think I have a Scott's catalogue around, I could source to web pages that mention the relevant numbers, if you like, but I think they are OK on their own.

Preparation

  • Sieger's name was not mentioned in the approach to the astronauts. — Perhaps "Eiermann did not mention Sieger's name when he approached the other astronauts."
Done, but I've omitted the word "other"
  • To ensure their families were provided for given the severe risks and dangers of their profession — I'm sure that's what they said, but it seems a bit generous for the article to assign to them without qualification a single, benevolent, motive.
That is what they said, and NASA, in the press release that announced the reprimands, mentioned it. It's also mentioned in the Justice Department opinion (1979). This is an area where we have to be careful due to BLP.
See what you think about my working, attributing it to the press release. I don't mean that the article should suggest they were lying, simply that we should be careful with the idea that we know what people's thoughts are.
  • Scott earned $2,199 a month, Worden $1,715 and Irwin $2,235. — From their jobs as astronauts? It's unclear.
The source does not go into greater detail. They were, after all, active duty military on assignment to NASA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irwin had concerns about the deal — Again, this suggests knowledge of an individual's thoughts.
It is his autobiography.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All we know is that he said those were his thoughts; we don't actually know for sure whether what he said were his thoughts were indeed his thoughts. George W. Bush's autobiography says that he didn't notice the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and that in any event it was not a proclamation of victory but simply referenced the crew of the ship having finished a long deployment. Could be true; could be false. (That's a long-winded way of saying this sentence would be fine as "Irwin later said he had concerns about the deal".)
Actually, my mistake, it's the Chiakin book, not the autobiography.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to cut that. Chiakin interviewed Irwin, but the sourcing in that book is not very clear, and without that it is hard to say he said it later. Better just to cut it.
  • See Chaikin, p. 249. — Why not just a normal reference?
Because then it would give it a footnote number, based on its position in the text. I feel that looks odd numerically so try to avoid it by using the Harvard Reference.
As long as it's cited it's fine, so no worries if you're varying formats. For the record, vying for consistent footnote numbers is a bit of a losing battle, since idiosyncrasies occur every time a footnote is reused. The article currently goes "[37] ... [22] ... [38]" and "[52] ... [4] ... [53]", for instance.
  • Because the Apollo 14 crew had accepted no money, they were not disciplined. — Then why did they fly the medals/give them to the Franklin Mint?
They got to keep the ones that were not given back. However, they did not sell them. At that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slayton reduced the number of medallions each member of Apollo 15 could take along by half. — From how many to how many?
Doesn't say. There were two types of medals on 14: the Franklin Mint medals, and the usual Robbins medals. There were 200 of the first and about 340 of the second. But that leaves what 15 was allowed to carry a bit unclear.
Perhaps then change "The private Franklin Mint, which had supplied the medallions" to "The private Franklin Mint, which had supplied 200 medallions" with a footnote after "medallions" stating that about 340 Robbins medals were also flown.
The relevance of the Apollo 14 medallions is that they put NASA on notice of the problem of commercialization and caused Slayton to warn the 15 astronauts. The Robbins medallions were not commercial and really aren't very relevant to the story of the postal covers.

Creation and spaceflight

  • a commercial artist — Who?
Added.
  • Apollo 15 carried the cover from the Postal Service to be cancelled on the surface — Saying "the cover" rather than "a cover" makes it sound as if this was already mentioned in the article (it wasn't) or that it was a regular occurrence. Was it? Additionally, a transition (such as "Additionally,") might be warranted to lead off the sentence.
It is included in the background section.
Where?
The one he cancelled on the Moon.
The first day cover? Nothing in "Background" says that the first day cover came from the USPS (other than in the technical sense, e.g., how one could say of all American stamps that they come from the USPS). Instead, in "Background" it sounds as if he cancelled a random first day cover, and in "Creation and spaceflight" it sounds as if he had been given a specific property-of-the-USPS cover (and not specifically a first day cover) to cancel. If you're just trying to find a place to link United States Postal Service, there are probably less-confusing places to do so, or you could mention it in both sections.
Oops, good point. I will clarify it was from the USPS.
  • Irwin carried 97 covers, one with a "flown-to-the-Moon" theme, eight with an Apollo 15 design, and 87 covers honoring Apollo 12 — I'm getting confused by the numbering. These are part of the 400, or in addition to?
I've hopefully clarified a bit. It's 398 (or 400) plus 144 plus 97 plus 2.
  • Scott catalogue number C76. — Same as above re: reference.
Ditto response.
  • Like other items being placed in the pockets on Scott's space suit (for example, his sunglasses) — I'm really hoping this was so he could forever after rock sunglasses that had been in space. Yes/no?
I would think it was so he would know what was in his pockets. The sunglasses was given as a specific example.
I mean the reason for bringing his sunglasses along for the flight.
I believe it was NASA equipment. I've read elsewhere that the pocket for the sunglasses were on one of his arms. Presumably there would be glare from the Sun.
Shame, was rooting for the Space-Bans.
  • about 641 covers aboard. — This is what I was looking for. Perhaps state this in the lead, and differentiate between those that were authorized and those that were unauthorized.

Distribution and scandal

  • Sieger offered the covers to his customers, selling them at DM 4,850 (about $1,500 at the time), with a discount to those who bought more than one. — How did he market them? What is $1,500 in 1972 dollars equal to in 2018 dollars? What was the discount? Also, might be worth reinforcing here that the agreement was that the covers would not be sold for some time.
I do not have anything that really says this was the deal, only that the astronauts said that was the deal. I have very little coming in from the Sieger/Eiermann side. I asked NASA if they have the investigative file, they say they don't. Presumably they would not ruin their own careers intentionally, but I don't feel I have anything definitive on the Sieger/Eiermann view of things.
He sent out a mailing. I don't know about the discount. I will add the bit about the mailing. I'm not thrilled about inflation templates. I think the monthly pay gives the reader enough context to appreciate the prices.
  • Herrick sold three himself, at a price of $1,250 — Each, or total?
Each.

Aftermath

  • See August 3, 1972 hearing, pp. 15–16. — Why not a regular reference?
See above re reference number.
  • In 1978 the department issued a report indicating that while the government might have some claim to the Herrick covers, it probably did not to the others — Why? It would seem that since the Herrick covers were the only authorized ones, they would be the ones the government would have least claim to.
The official writing the opinion felt that there was greater evidence of commercialization re Herrick. There wasn't any evidence that the astronauts planned to sell the 298, they said they were for gifts, and went about getting the covers made very openly. It's fairly thick legal prose.
Perhaps worth a half-sentence explanation
  • An Apollo 15 postal stamped cover that was one of the group of 298 impounded by the government — Any word on how many of these the astronauts still have>
No one, except I imagine Colonel Scott and Colonel Worden, know, and I gather from Col. Worden's autobiography that they are not on speaking terms because of this incident. Colonel Irwin is dead and I really looked for info about his selling his covers, because as a evangelical minister, he led expeditions to find Noah's Ark and I would have loved to be able to tie that in.
  • A Sieger cover sold in 2014 for over $55,000 — Are the Sieger covers more coveted than the 298, and if so, why?
  • one of only four Sieger covers to come to public sale since the initial distribution. — Details of the other three?
Of the nine auction sales of Sieger covers, this was the highest price realized.
The article states that four have come up for auction. So nine sales of the four covers?
It was the fourth, then, and that is what we say. Five others have come up for sale since then. There are pages that list them, we don't have to.
Got it, and agreed. You could add a footnote if you're so inclined, but up to you.
More or less does.

References

Because I'm working from a copy of the reprint. And I notice they do Britishize (Britishise) the spelling.
  • #38 — Retrieval date not needed, since the link is just a courtesy
Done.
  • #44 — Perhaps spell it out; "AAMS" is not a commonly understood acronym.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • #99 – Should "Schneck, Harold M. Jr." instead be "Schneck Jr., Harold M."? Also, why no NYT link for this one?
I have reproductions of some of the print coverage from then, they were included with the transcript. That also explains #113. And Jr. has been moved.
  • #113 — The NYT articles are also paywalled (maybe others too), but this appears to be the only one you put the subscription required template on.
Probably because this was the only one I got off their database, the other were reproductions as stated.
The subscription template is less about the reference you're using, and more a warning to readers about the link they're about to click on. In general, you might also consider more links as a courtesy to the reader. Even if they require a subscription, some readers will have them (especially with more common sources such as the NYT).
  • #7, 8, 9, 14, 22 — Is the publisher Chris Spain, or space-flown artifacts? I would think "Chris Spain" would go in the last=/first= parameters. Otherwise, you might consider doing separate publisher=/website= parameters.
It is his website but he did not necessarily write the pages. I'm not sure there's a need to repeat what the reader can get from examining the URL, or just clicking.

Sources

  • Fletcher/NASA — Are these not available on Google Books or another non-subscription site (e.g., a government site)?
Only on Congressional ProQuest that I've seen. A shame because it's an interesting document, especially when the committee stumbles over the fact they were put on the lunar lander. I can email you a copy if you send me an email.
  • New York, NY — Several of these. Totally discretionary, but perhaps best rendered simply as "New York City".
I am going to let it stand. I just had to deal with "New York" by itself being insufficient in the last FAC.
  • Winick 1973 — Missing publisher location, and "pp."
It was self-published by the philatelic group.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's a journal. They published this thing annually. The pages seems to be how it is intended to be rendered.
Perhaps the location of the group, then, unless you've refrained since "Chicagoland" is self-explanatory.

Wehwalt, the award for 'best way to conclude a Wikipedia article' is all yours. Great read. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, I knew gold when I saw it. The credit goes to Slate. I think I've gotten just about everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast response, Wehwalt. A few more comments are above, and I think the one about whether Sieger covers are more coveted may have been overlooked amidst the others. See what you think of them; the only one I'm waiting for a response on before supporting is the one about the USPS. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't overlook it. The Sieger covers are certainly highly prized, but other than rarity I didn't find anything that says they are more prized than the group of 298. They all went to the lunar surface, after all. I've added the bit on the postal service. Many thanks for your thorough comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, I enjoyed reading it. Support added. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moise[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, and seasons greetings! Very interesting article. I have a few comments, which I will get to soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "On August 2, before finishing the final EVA and entering the Lunar Module, Scott used a special postmarking device to cancel a first day cover provided by the United States Postal Service of two stamps": The wording "a first day cover ... of two stamps" seems unclear to me. He cancelled two covers (envelopes with a stamp on them), right? Would "A first day cover ... of each of two stamps" work better? Moisejp (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two stamps, one cover. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. How about "on which were two stamps" instead of "of two stamps"? Such wording would have prevented my initial confusion. Moisejp (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done with slight variation.

Preparation:

  • Minor comment, but David Scott's name is wiki-linked in the captions of both images of him (necessary?). In the first caption he is called "David R. Scott" but I think everywhere else simply "David Scott". Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you mean is two pictures of him necessary, or the middle initial necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two pictures is fine, just wasn't sure that two wiki-links to his name were necessary. And I meant it is probably good to remove the middle initial for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "Scott also told the committee that he had met Eiermann at a party, rather than through another astronaut": Does "another astronaut" mean Slayton here? Either way, it seems unclear.
Scott is directly responding to a question from committee member Lowell Weicker "Did you meet him through another astronaut?" "No, sir. I met him just in a casual conversation at a party ..." Slayton due to a medical condition even though he was one of the Original Seven astronauts was not on flight status. He later flew on Apollo-Soyuz. Scott said this in 1972. In the commentary in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to Scott cancelling the stamps on the Moon, I find "[To complete the stamp story: in May 1971, Deke Slayton (Dave told me in a 1996 letter) introduced Dave to a German business man named Horst Eiermann who proposed that, in addition to the 250 authorized first-day covers, the crew take along and cancel 400 additional covers for later resale - 100 for each member of the crew and 100 for Eiermann." Then he mentioned Slayton in his 2004 memoir. Slayton died in 1993, and he doesn't mention introducing Scott and Eiermann in his own memoir. I didn't see the need to mention the Lunar Surface Journal, it's enough to note that there are different versions. I guess the bottom line is that it is unclear if Scott includes Slayton under "astronauts".
  • "and that the first Slayton knew of the space-flown Sieger covers was in April of 1972, following an inquiry from a member of the public": I wonder whether this detail would be better later in the article, perhaps in Distribution and scandal or Aftermath sections. But it's just an idea, and I don't have a specific spot in mind. I understand where it is now is meant to contribute to the question of whether Slayton was there at the earliest meetings, but on the other hand the actual flying of the "space-flown Sieger covers" has not been mentioned yet in the main part of the article, so from that point of view the detail seems possibly a tiny bit out of place. Anyway, see what you think. Moisejp (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it. Slayton's attitude is made very clear from the excerpt from his memoir.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, Scott earned $2,199 a month, Worden $1,715 and Irwin $2,235": The first time I read this, it took me a moment to understand that "earned" refers to their regular monthly salary as astronauts (right?), and I first read it as some kind of monthly distribution of the $7000 previously mentioned. Of course I soon realized this reading doesn't make sense, but would it be an idea to clarify that this refers to their regular salary from NASA, to avoid any momentary confusion such as I had? Moisejp (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "These would be split" / "with the space-flown covers to be divided between the two of them". Is the second of these necessary? It seems to have already been established in the first of these. Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and spaceflight:

  • "Collins of the Mission Support Office”: I know he was introduced already with his full name and role in the Background section, which is quite a way back, so the reader may need a reminder, but this re-introduction with last name and role feels nonetheless awkward. I’m not immediately sure what to suggest as an alternative here. If you have an idea, great, otherwise I’ll try to think about it more. Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to disambiguate from Michael Collins of Apollo 11, which would be my first thought if I came upon the name Collins in a NASA related article.
  • "In addition to those brought by Scott and by Worden, Irwin carried 97 covers, one with a "flown-to-the-Moon" theme, eight with an Apollo 15 design, and 87 covers honoring Apollo 12, carried as a favor for Barbara Gordon, wife of Apollo 12 astronaut Dick Gordon." Is this supposed to mean 97=1+8+87? If so, is there one missing? Also, I gather all 97 were carried for B. Gordon—if so, would it be an idea to add "all carried as a favor for Barbara Gordon", so it's clear it's not just the 87? And maybe put a colon after "97 covers" to make it clearer what follows is a breakdown of the 97, and not additional covers.
Good catch, it was originally thought to be 88 for Gordon but later sources have it as 87. The 97 is just addition, it should be 96. The others were not carried for her, and this is made clear later in the article when Irwin gives away two of them to people not named Gordon. I'll mull over rephrasing.
  • I wonder whether it'd be an idea to start a new paragraph at "In addition to those brought by Scott and by Worden". I initially got a little lost in this paragraph, especially by the time it gets to "Apollo 15 carried the cover from the Postal Service to be cancelled on the surface of the Moon." I think breaking up the para could help. Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did that too. In anticipation of the objections that 87 rather than 88 alters the math, I've footnoted an explanation with reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and scandal:

  • "One of Irwin's covers was given to Rhodes and one to the president of the Kennedy Space Center Philatelic Society; Irwin said in 1972 that he had retained the other six." These are the eight Apollo 15 ones, right? It could be better to specify this (unless you already have and I missed it) because Irwin carried lots of other covers.
  • There are lots of numbers throughout, especially of the various distributions of the different groups of covers. This is unavoidable, but it can be a little hard to keep track of for the reader. Just an idea: What about a table somewhere, possibly in a footnote, that summarizes important notes and the fate of different groups and subgroups of the covers? There were about 641 total, right? You could break that up into initial big groups of the 144 Herrick ones, then the 400 Eiermann ones, and the 96 Irwin ones in another group. Then break these up into subgroups, e.g., among the Irwin ones there were various configurations; and likewise the various subcategories of the other groups. You could decide the most important information to include in the table e.g., authorized or unauthorized, sold or unsold, carried onto the Falcon or not—these are just examples, I'm in no way saying this is necessarily the best information, just that there is lots of information throughout the article about the different groups that potentially could be included in the table. You could also possibly have a Notes column in table for open-ended details. Anyway, this table idea is just an idea. Feel free to ignore if you don't think it'd be useful. Moisejp (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Moisejp (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done those. Table making is not my strength, but I've added one. I don't know if it is possible to add pictures. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. When I get some time I'll look into how to put images in there. I borrowed the coding from United States Bicentennial coinage. The articles you've worked on become a resource you can draw on, I've often cut and copied the quote box in Garret Hobart for use in other articles. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Precious little from me. The article was in fine shape the first time round, me judice. If I strain every nerve to be pernickety:

  • Lead:
    • "Worden had made arrangements" – perhaps just "Worden had arranged" or "…had agreed"?
  • Background
    • "The mission set a number of space records" – some reviewers (not me) get shirty about "a number of": substituting "several" might head them off here.
  • Creation and spaceflight
    • "teflon-covered fiberglass" – is Teflon now regarded as a common noun, not to be capped? I think it's technically a trademark. (But then so is Fiberglass, now I look it up.) As so many words are common English but technically trademarks – "hoover" etc – I don't like to express a view either way about capitalising here.
  • Sources
    • Faries, Belmont: "covers" presumably, rather than "coers".

That really is all I can find to carp about. A fascinating article, comprehensive, balanced and v. readable. And I echo Usernameunique's praise of the delectable envoi. Happy to support again and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I concur with your dictum. Absent the trade names, which I think should be left lower case, I've done those things. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kees08[edit]

Placeholder so you can bug me if I forget to review. Kees08 (Talk) 04:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • On ref 104, per WP:SIC, However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is contextually important. Since the slip is not contextually important, recommend fixing it.
It's a title of an article. It may be important in a search.
Hmm, I do not feel strongly about it, I typically go with the guidelines to try to keep the 'pedia consistent. Leave it however you wish though. Kees08 (Talk)
As two reviewers have at various stages flagged this, I have done as you requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On ref 118, use agency=Associated Press
Done.
  • On ref 121, do not think you need website=RRAuction
Done.
  • In the Notes section, why not use citations normally instead of adding See Winick, pp. 87–88.
Because then you get footnote numbers used down there, well out of apparent order. This doesn't happen in paper sources because their pages are shorter than ours. Accordingly, I use harvnb referencing within notes.
  • Citation 7 (and other similar ones) should probably have Space Flown Artifacts as the publisher and Chris Spain as the author (excluding pages where he was not the author)
He appears to be the copyright holder for the site. See here. I don't see why it is better to have a URL than the guy's name who is actually putting it in front of the public.
I see it as Space Flown Artifacts is the corporate entity that published it (so would be in the publisher field), and Chris Spain is the author of it so would be in the author field. I feel mildly stronger about this, but not very. Kees08 (Talk)
I have changed the publisher field to "Space Flown Artifacts (Chris Spain)"
  • Citation 10 should be July 8, 2009
Fixed.
  • Citation 9 is missing the date
Fixed.
  • Page number for citation 67, 104, and any other similar newspaper citations?
  • At least The New York Times is overlinked; scrub the article for others
I'm not certain on this one Kees08. The reader isn't reading sequentially through the references, and if he's examining reference, say 199, it does him little good to have the source name linked on ref 122, he won't see it. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Multiple reviewers have asked me to only wikilink it in the first instance, and I blindly followed without looking up the policy. Apparently, per our policy, " Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article". So ignore that point. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I scrub all of these, would you mind scrubbing through and looking for things like missing dates, author names, etc? I will take another look after. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through and added a couple of dates, Kees08. Not every page is dated, not every author listed, but I don't see any obvious omissions or I'd fill them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it is tough to get them all. I am actually doing another scrub on Aldrin's article and finding a few. I just realized when I was going through your article that NYT puts the page number at the bottom of the article...had never noticed that before. I will continue going through the article today. Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished the above. Thank you for the comments to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be Apollo Program or Apollo program? The article has it the latter way.
I think the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knowing what a Sieger cover was would have helped before the Armstrong auction :)
  • I'd break this into two sentences (suggestion only) The crew of Apollo 15, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin, agreed to take payments for carrying the covers; though they returned the money, they were reprimanded by NASA.
I think there'd be some difficulty in the second part standing on its own. I'd like to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worded as The crew of Apollo 15, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin, agreed to take payments for carrying the covers. Although they returned the money to NASA, they were still reprimanded. Style choice though, to each their own. Kees08 (Talk) 07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "still" in that bothers me, as if they should not have been. Although the language of the reprimand was not made public, I would expect it went beyond the simply taking money.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could get rid of "apparently" Apparently due to an error, they were not included on the list of the personal items he was taking into space.\
I'm not in favor, really. All we have is Smothermann's word for it. The circumstances are hazy enough that I don't think we should take it as gospel. If we grant that Slayton knew, as suggested by the Sun-Times reporter and supported by the conclusion of the Justice Department that NASA may have known about the covers, then they wouldn't have to be on the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the citation that supports that information? (not asking you to include it in intro, just wondering). Would it be possible to say that Smotherman said the omission was due to an error or that It was reported the omissions was due to an error? I think "apparently" sounds a little inexact and unencyclopedic and would like to avoid it if possible. Kees08 (Talk) 07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Fletcher's letter to Anderson, which is the report requested by the Senate Committee. I just feel it's an awfully thin reed to base an unconditional statement on. Maybe "likely" for "apparently", or "Due to an apparent error"?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would modify this: were being sold, the astronauts' supervisor, Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, warned to this: were being sold, the astronauts' supervisor Deke Slayton warned. Just my personal preference probably, sentence is pretty choppy. Only for the intro, in the body more detail is acceptable
  • Do you know if the Soviets did? The American astronauts participated in creating collectables.
I have no idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar module pilot should be lower case since it is not being used as a title Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 14
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what happened with this ref, but the link goes to collectSPACE and should be cited as such. (ref 9 right now) "Neil Armstrong collection commands $5.2 million at auction". Space Flown Artifacts (Chris Spain). November 5, 2018. Retrieved December 28, 2018.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would de-link aircraft carrier per WP:SEAOFBLUE and the fact people probably know what one is. by the aircraft carrier USS Okinawa
  • Looks like the target article uses lower case, probably should here for consistency use the Lunar Rover.
  • There was just some relevant talk about exact times on the Apollo 11 talk page, probably applies here as well and remained there for just under 67 hours.
I've read it. I think people are not coming here for exact timings on Moon stays, there's the main 15 article for that. They're coming here to read about the scandal, and so we can just paint the general mission picture for this set of readers.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be tenth? Not sure if the typical rule applies for that. the 10th anniversary
I've changed to "tenth".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and I know that the life insurance is not from the stamp dealer or from the stamps, but you may want to squeeze in there that Time used to give previous astronauts more money and higher life insurance than later astronauts (if I remember all that correctly). Otherwise, with where it is in the paragraph it implies it has to do with the stamp dealer. Earlier astronauts had been given free life insurance.
I will rephrase. I think the whole issue of astronaut life insurance is a bit complicated to include here. My understanding is that no Apollo astronaut flew without life insurance, and the 15 astronauts in their memoirs talk about life insurance but they never actually say they didn't have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've explicitly mentioned Life magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason this sentence sounds odd to me; not sure if rephrasing it would help Herrick arranged for a commercial artist, Vance Johnson,[39] with whom Worden discussed the design, resulting in 100 envelopes depicting the phases of the Moon.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you tried using Dick here? for a friend of Astronaut Gordon
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What time zone? the Moon at 9:34 am on July 26, 1971
Added EDT with a link on the earlier time mention, 1 am. I think the reader will get we're on the same timeline.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks pretty good so far!
Thanks. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I am caught up on comments on the other articles, I will get through the rest of the article soon. Kees08 (Talk) 03:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should that be a semicolon? The stamps were secured from the post office at Pearl Harbor:[66] 4,000 were flown to the Okinawa at sea by helicopter,[54] reportedly in the custody of a naval officer joining the vessel.[67]
  • Do we ever say in 2018 dollars how much these are worth? Should we?
I've never been a fan of such things. The 1971 era figures are given scale by the astronauts' salaries and the sales figures are recent enough not to have been eroded that much by inflation.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should have a citation immediately following a statement qualified with "probably"
I've added it. There was some confusion in the testimony on this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably before they made an official NASA trip to Europe in November 1971, the Apollo 15 astronauts received and completed the paperwork necessary to open accounts in a Stuttgart-area bank to receive the agreed $7,000 payments.

  • What is the rest of the quote? If it ends there, the period should be within the quotations. Just checking. Worden remembered, "we did this before NASA asked us anything about a deal with Sieger—before NASA even knew about it".
Worden prefaces the quoted language with "And, I should stress, we did this ... knew about it."
  • This could be phrased better He hoped he could turn the experience to use in his ministry, helping him empathize with others who had erred.
I've rephrased, though I don't see what was wrong with it.

Some general comments: I think the article has too much detail in general. Not so much that I would not support it, but I think it would be an improvement if things like:

  • On August 31, 1971, C.G. Carsey, a clerk in the Astronaut Office in Houston,
  • On September 2, Scott sent the 100 covers by registered mail to Eiermann, who was in Stuttgart where he had moved.
Editing break for convenience[edit]

I suggest this because the article seems really choppy to me. I think that is probably subjective, which is why I would support anyways, but if you agree with me I can help you find excessive detail to remove. Kees08 (Talk) 07:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review. I feel that this article has to satisfy two kinds of reader, the space reader and the stamp reader, and thus detail which may not interest one has to be included for the other. I think it is important to know who Carsey was even for the space reader so as to be aware of the public resources that Scott was able to get devoted to this task (most visibly noted with how the stamps got to the carrier). As for Eiermann moving to Stuttgart, it's needed for continuity, since the actions he takes after that make more sense if we know he's in Europe.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08, did you have further comments? I'd like to get this wrapped up for one reason and another, if possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of.
  • I only see volumes 1 and 2, where can I find volume 5 of American Air Mail Catalogue
Ww2censor kindly provided me with the relevant pages, and the title page, that does say Volume 5.
  • Wikilink Francis French
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have this book? Worldcat only gives Quadrangle as the publisher The Voyages of Apollo: The Exploration of the Moon
I don't own the book but I viewed it in a library and photographed the copyright page and the relevant page sand that is how the copyright page phrases it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The range of pages does not match the range of pages you are citing. Probably delete the page range from here? Also, where can I find a copy of this? Ramkissoon, Reuben A. (2006), "An Astrophilatelic Rendering of the Conquest of Space: Part 3, Project Apollo—the Moon Landing Missions", The Congress Book 2006, State College, PA: American Philatelic Congress, Inc., pp. 191–211
It was a typo, 211 should read 221. You could get a copy as I did through the American Philatelic Society library.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christine Toomey is an author as well. It also has St. Martin's Press listed as the publisher, do you have the copy to check? Scott, David; Leonov, Alexei (2004). Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books. ISBN 978-0-7434-5067-6.
The copyright page says that Thomas Dunne Books is an imprint of St. Martin's Press. It says Scott and Leonov with Toomey. Does that count as full co-authorship?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ulman should only be listed as the editor Ulman, Leon (1981), "78-64 Memorandum Opinion for the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division", in Ulman, Leon, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel (January 11, 1978 – December 31, 1978), 2, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, pp. 281–289, ISBN 978-0-936502-00-7
I meant to add him as editor and you'll find the fields filled out with him as editor, but it isn't apparent from the reference.
  • Would it be worth noting that Sieger sold $150,000 worth of covers total?
I can't say he grossed that amount. He gave some sort of discount.
That's the number the attorney general gave in the report (the one in the bullet point below this). Kees08 (Talk) 03:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there was no discount they would still be wrong as Sieger kept one. We already know the AG's office is fallible, see below.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This says the astronauts were to get $10,000 each, the article says $7,000. Are the sources pretty consistent on the dollar amount?
Yes, very much so, and it is stated throughout the testimony.
  • The same document says 60 of Worden's covers were impounded, and the article says 61. Can you explain the discrepancy?
See footnote g
Can you add footnote g to here? The remaining covers in the astronauts' control (298 from the group of 400[i] and 61 more from Worden)
"Faries noted that in 1983, 61 Herrick envelopes were returned by NASA to Worden, rather than the expected 60, but the 61st had no postal markings. For a full discussion of the number of covers, see Faries, pp. 29–31."
  • I should have asked this awhile ago, but in Worden 2011, pp. 149–150, 2679–2674, what is 2679–2674 referring to?
Kindle locations. I used the digital versions of Worden's books and a couple of others. Hawkeye7 added the page numbers later, most kind of him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. I wish there was a good way to show that. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I get complaints when I use it, but it is a very convenient way of carrying books with me on my trips.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the last FAC, there were comments about the use of primary sources. At least one of the primary sources you have could be replaced with secondary sources. I have provided some clippings for the Apollo 14 coin incident:

If you need more of that event let me know. Many of the primary sources are used in a good way, to show the astronauts' thoughts or feelings on issues. I will go through the rest of the article and see if that is always the case. If you could replace the Apollo 14 flight medal primary source with the ones I provided (or other non-primary sources), that would be an improvement. Kees08 (Talk) 23:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked most of the rest of them, and they all seem appropriate. Kees08 (Talk) 23:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the third one as an additional source. Every word we have is not in that article. They might be in the other two, but I don't have page 1 on those. I will note my reluctance on these because as a practical matter if you are changing source it is a very tedious exercise to see that you have either fully sourced using the new source or else change your writing to fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think On the flight, the 400 covers were autographed and divided by the three astronauts sounds better as On the flight, the 400 covers were divided among the three astronauts and autographed. Suggestion only; just makes it more chronological.
Since they bear all three signatures, they would want to complete the autograph signing before dividing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After the above are addressed appropriately (completed or given rationale to why it should not be), I can support the nomination. The previous FAC also said the prose was "sluggish", which seems to match my thought that it is "choppy". You can try to make it less choppy/sluggish if you can, but I will not withhold support for the article. Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Given the number of editors who have looked over the article, the prose is what it is. I am constantly reviewing the article for improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Two bullet points above you missed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got those now. Thank you for kicking the tires on this one and then some.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Good read. Only one point: I'm confused about the single cover canceled on the moon (during the first read, I assumed it was part of the scandal, which it seems not). Any more on this? Was this ordered by NASA, was it officially authorized? What happened to it? I also wonder why this info appears in the "background" section only and has no mention in the "Creation and spaceflight" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned that it and a backup were on the flight. It is today in the National Postal Museum, see here. I could certainly mention that if you feel it should be included. I think at one point I mentioned that it and the backup were returned to the USPS, it was flown at their request. I can put in as much detail as necessary, but was getting concerned about length and focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a brief mention that this was done on request by the USPS would avoid confusion. I personally would also add that they were returned to the USPS for completeness (If you already mentioned it, I can't find it). This way, it would be entirely clear that these covers were not sold for the astronaut profits or anything. I would furthermore recommend to amend the image label "Scott cancels an envelope on the Moon" to "Scott cancels an envelope on the Moon on request of the United States Postal Service" or something similar to make this clear to people who do not read the whole article (because if you see the image without reading the article, you will mistakenly assume that this was in the center of the controversy). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • Support. Just one point for consideration. The final sentence in background ("On August 2,...") seems a little out of place for before the launch etc. These details could be included slightly later in the article, without losing focus at the front. Whatever you decide on that point, my support still stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I think this needs to be here so it's not a distraction from the other covers. I'm trying to get the operational parts of the mission out of the way in Background or I fear things will get too complicated in the spaceflight section.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Will start now. Kees08 (Talk) 23:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Sieger cover.jpg - a slightly weird one because it is a photo of the cover, but I believe the copyright information is correct as-is.
  • File:Apollo 15 (15012200679).jpg - Requires personality rights warning per NASA (I can try to find the document if you want, it is on one of the John Glenn reviews). Maybe replace The Commons licensing with NASA's actual licensing? Also, why is the time in the date?
I'm not clear on what you mean by replacing the licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to an example of the personality rights? Because I just looked at some of the images in the Glenn article from 1962 and didn't see anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry for the ambiguity. From NASA, NASA astronaut crew patches are also permitted on merchandise, but in some instances NASA may recommend that the names of astronauts be removed from the patches to avoid issues relating to endorsement, or rights of publicity.. I interpret this to mean c:Template:Personality rights needs to be added to the patches. Do you agree, and does that make sense? Kees08 (Talk) 20:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That template and the Commons policy page linked therefrom seem to apply to photographs of people. Maybe we could just reproduce the text you mention, possibly in a non-copyright restrictions box?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've experimented with it here but I don't know if it will survive on Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. Would you be able to turn it into a proper template so I can add it to other crew patches? Obviously not as a part of this review. Kees08 (Talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was substitute the words you used for the word "empty" in this. I have never made a template on Commons, but will be happy to cooperate or learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the date. I tried uploading a new version from the page you cited, but got a message that it was identical to the current version.
Right, you changed the link to the source, which is what I was looking for. Kees08 (Talk)
Subbed.
  • File:As15 flown phases of the moon cover.jpg - the licensing information should match File:Sieger cover.jpg
  • File:Apollo 15 Flown Cover.jpg - I do not think you can say it is PD because it is a government work and also say it was created by a non-government employee. Three items on it are works of the government and covered by that, and the presentation of it in the frame is by David Frohman. It looks like they meant to release that portion of it as PD but technically did not...

Nikkimaria have ideas on this?

Probably best just to crop down to the cover itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that would be the most straightforward solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done and I've cleaned up the licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now standardized the licensing as PD-no notice as there was no copyright notice.
Should the source still be 'Own work', since we are just left with the US government portions? Kees08 (Talk) 00:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording, will look at the personality rights thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Apollo 15 prime crew.jpg - well, this feels kind of stupid, but...from the template NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". The Flickr source indicates NC, which is not compatible w/ the Commons. So since it is noted, unless you can get explicit permission through an OTRS ticket, I think we would have to delete it (and all the other images in that Flickr album...) from Commons. Nikkimaria, thoughts on this one?
I've just changed to the image of the crew from the Apollo 15 infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:The Apollo 15 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001169.jpg - the description is not from Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (which is good, because it would be a copyvio), so you should remove that bit. The date also does not match ALSJ. I would replace the source link with this NASA link, which is likely where the high resolution version came from. It has the same date as ALSJ, which does not match the date we have listed. Should be able to remove who scanned it since you would not be using the ALSJ scan. Kees08 (Talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
OK, done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is the source, you could include who scanned it in if you wanted to, but it is not required. They are on this page.

I have, on the image pages.

That should be all. Let me know if you have questions or disputes. Kees08 (Talk) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Kees08, I think we're up to date. I just need the info on the personality rights thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for images. I do not think adding personality rights warnings is required, and it gets a little ambiguous when we should/should not include them anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. Note to coordinators: I think what Usernameunique and Kees08 did was the equivalent of a source review as well. However, if you need me to go out and get an explicit one, I'll list it. Otherwise I don't see any impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: . See note just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that a sufficient source review has been completed. Thanks for the ping. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the stamped covers, I think you need to specifically distinguish between the portions covered by the template {{PD-US-no notice}} and the stamps, all of which are public domain per {{PD-USGov}} that applies to all US stamps per-1978. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that now. Thanks. Good catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed another one for you. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: I think this has had a very thorough review, and I'm happy that we've covered all the FA criteria and any concerns from the previous FAC. Just a few minor issues, which don't need to hold up promotion. First, we need consistency over alt text. Some images have it, others don't. One or the other is preferable. Second, it may be worth checking the duplinks. The tool shows up a few, but I will leave it up to the main editors to decide if they are necessary or not. Finally, there are a few references (all for Worden 2011, e.g. refs 30, 88 and 115) which use "p." rather than "pp." for a range of pages (e.g. like refs 19 and 64). But I'm happy to promote on the understanding that someone takes a look at these afterwards. Sarastro (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (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_15_postal_covers_incident/archive1&oldid=879396209"