Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 15 postage stamp incident/archive1


 * 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2018.

Apollo 15 postage stamp incident

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a controversy that came up late in the Apollo Project, that profoundly affected the careers of the astronauts involved, and still does affect them, as I saw by watching an interview with one of them last year that almost immediately brought this issue up. There are a lot of variations on what happened, so I've gone to some lengths to make it clear inline where the information is coming from, which I believe is also consistent with our BLP policy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
Lead, 1a:
 * "When in 1972 it became widely known that some of these envelopes were being sold for over a thousand dollars each, there was a considerable scandal, and none of the three astronauts ever flew in space again." Slightly bumpy, but more importantly, is the last clause a causal spin-off from the preceding propositions? They were embarrassed about the scandal, so they went into retirement? If so, it needs to be clearer. "these envelopes" needs to back-refer more narrowly. The bumps could be tamed thus: "A year later there was considerable scandal when it became widely known that some of the unlisted envelopes were being sold for over a thousand dollars each, ...".
 * I"ve rewritten a bit but I think it was clear as stood.


 * Up to you, but I'd write "100 of them".
 * I am stressing that these were the unauthorized covers.


 * "the three astronauts, David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin agreed to a proposal from Horst Eiermann that they carry postal covers to the Moon, in exchange for $7,000 for each of them." Who is Horst Eiermann? We're totally in the dark. Was it a private proposal? Was it secretive? Or was it above-board and the cash was to go to NASA? Maybe it comes out later, but it's confusing not to be told here. It sounds prima facie outrageous—but it's not clear enough for readers. You have to wonder between the lines.
 * I've added that he was an acquaintance, though it duplicates the term used regarding Herrick. Since the astronauts were consistent on neither point, and there are BLP issues, I don't feel like going any further than that.


 * had ... have.
 * I've made a slight change, though I don't think it unnecessary duplication.


 * The parenthetical bit is pulled backward to the where, and forward to the when: "and were postmarked again on the recovery carrier, the USS Okinawa on August 7, the date of splashdown."
 * I've again made a slight change. These things have to be explained.


 * "the remainder was" ... more comfortable for readers as "were". My eyes jerked at it.
 * I did consider that, but thought the American reader would not like the construction. I've changed "remainder" to "rest"
 * On reconsideration, I've varied the wording a bit to avoid the question of whether it should be singular or plural.


 * "these were only postmarked on splashdown"—the "only" is ambiguous. If you mean they had to wait till splashdown (not processed in other ways too), put "only" after "postmarked".
 * I think the way you want it would read oddly, at least to the American reader, so I've cut the phrase entirely to avoid the issue.


 * "When NASA received word about the Herrick covers"—word of, I think. "heard about" is fine.
 * I've changed to a different wording.


 * "Amid objections that astronauts should not be allowed to reap personal profits from NASA missions, there was considerable publicity,"—weren't the objections part of the publicity?
 * I rewrote this slightly though I think it could have stood as is unremarkably.


 * "In 1983, they sued for the return of the covers that had been impounded in 1972, and they gained this in an out-of-court settlement." Personal style: I'd not use the comma after a sentence-initial time phrase ending in a year, unless there was a reason in terms of sentence length and overall rhythm (but I do insert a comma between numerals and first-person "I"). I think you could weed out a few commas generally. Do you need the second "they"? Instead, maybe "In 1983 they sued for return of the covers impounded in 1972, which they gained in an out-of-court settlement."
 * I think if you changed that, you'd have to change the previous sentence "In 1977, ..." which would look odd, so I will plead sentence rhythm.

It's a rocky road. Is the rest of it better? Tony (talk)  02:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Try it and see. You may or may not like it there is a lot of material and variations on the story to, er, cover. It to a certain extent comes with the territory as there is no canonical version of these events to fall back on.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm really saying that it's not at FA standard by the look of the lead. I have limited time. I may take samples further down at some stage, but we rely on nominators and their colleagues to take the mantle and apply comments throughout. Thx. Tony (talk)  09:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your view of course, but it's had a peer review from two people who seemed to think the prose was up to snuff. Tony, would you mind waiting on the responses if I'm obviously working on the article? I just lost some replies to an edit conflict. If you've waited nine years to say something to me after our last interaction, which I do not recall as pleasant, since we went to AN/I over it, can you at least wait a few minutes?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope I do not come off as grumpy, it is not quite 6 am. I am certainly prepared to work with you in good faith on this. In fact, I regret the earlier incident and would welcome the opportunity.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "but it's had a peer review from two people who seemed to think the prose was up to snuff"—That's designed to piss reviewers. Do NOT play reviewers off against each other. And I don't recall this ANI stuff you refer to: it's vaguely threatening, and it's personal in its intent. Nor do I like the tone of "You are entitled to your view". Tony  (talk)  23:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You were haled there, and you admitted making an oppose not because the article deserved it, but to make a point. Just as here, your stated reason for opposing is not the article, but because you don't like what I said. We have not said a word to each other between the interactions, but it seems very little has changed. It may well be that you do not remember it, but that would come as a surprise in view of our very lack of contact. Sorry, that's how it looks from me. In the real world, if you had a conflict with a co-worker, then chose to have no contact for 9 years, then weighed back with criticism that will see no good, and immediately take offense, your motives would be open to question, and would be questioned. The article was Indian Head eagle, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have opposed because the prose is way below standard. Sorry you can't cope with a proper review of it. You keep repeating "nine years" and "lack of contact". I've no idea what you're on about, but I'll leave you to work it out, internally. You seem to think I have a special place for you in my social mind: I don't. I barely remember any interactions. This is not the place to spew personal issues. It's undignified and irrelevant to the process. Tony (talk)  00:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your words and actions speak for themselves, then and now. Enough said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I peer reviewed this article and my few quibbles were dealt with then. Well-written, well and widely sourced, comprehensive, and most interesting to boot. Very happy to support.  Tim riley  talk   15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Clikity

 * Try to send this in to WP:GOCE/REQ next time. If the article fails, work with the editors there then run it for another peer review. That's just a bit of advice from me. I honestly don't know if I should support or oppose this nomination. Lots of the prose is very sluggish. Also this seems to have lots of primary sources. Try to make this article more clear and concise. All else it does a good job against most of my criteria. I guess I have to do a tedious review through this article when I have time. Clikity (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comments would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

czar

 * I'm really surprised to see this article rely so heavily on primary sources: three books/autobiographies from the three astronauts and a handful of letters/NASA docs → 2/3 of the bibliography? Why weren't secondary sources sufficient? It isn't like this primary source stuff is only filling in little holes. czar  18:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there are few to no secondary sources that make judgments among the varying versions of events. If you have secondary sources that cover this area in detail that I have not used, I would be very glad to know of them. And given BLP concerns here, I felt it best to let the astronauts speak to the facts. I'm not sure how else you might do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we cover topics in proportion to their secondary source coverage, a lack of secondary sourcing would indicate that this topic might be better covered in an expanded section of the parent article rather than split out summary style from the parent. I haven't done a full analysis, but if more than half of the prose is sourced to primary sources, that would indicate that not enough has been written about the topic to warrant a dedicated article. Perhaps your research would be publishable elsewhere though. czar  19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems somewhat at variance with WP:PRIMARY, which cautions against building the entire article from primary sources. I would note that the NASA letters are more secondary sources than primary, anyway, they are reports based on primary sources such as interviews and documents we do not see. And the use of autobiographies is commonplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my concern, that the article is potentially built from majority primary/affiliated sources, which we avoid, as a tertiary source. Anyway, that was the only point I wanted to make. (not watching, please )  czar  19:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and thank you for your comment. I think if you looked into it, you would find that it's within policy, and I did carefully read the policy while writing out of the concern you mention. Among other things, the sources you note are not used for analysis, and there are a fair number of secondary sources used. I'll wait and see how a source review goes. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment
So as not to place reviewers or a coordinator in an awkward position, I am withdrawing this nomination, this time, although I believe it meets the criteria and all relevant policies. All interested are invited to improve this article, if they desire, directly or by comment on the talk page. Thanks especially to the peer reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, I left this a while to allow for any change of mind but as there's been none I'll honour the request now. I was prepared to comment on the dispute above but I really think it's academic now, so I'll just say that I hope we see the article back here at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * personally I have concerns about the title of the article, because the Apollo 15 mission stamps are not the subject of the article, which themselves were never the incident per se, but it is about the mail, envelopes, or covers, carried on the mission. I'm sure there has to be better title that is more appropriate to the topic. Something like "Apollo 25 crew-carried mail incident" or "Apollo 25 crew-carried mail controversy" would seems much better. BTW, maybe you should put it up for a GA instead of FA. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.