Wikipedia:Peer review/Apollo 15 postage stamp incident/archive1

Apollo 15 postage stamp incident
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FAC in due course. This was something of a nine-day wonder in the summer of 1972; the scandal soon subsided but it obviously detoured the astronauts' careers.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

 * Lead
 * The second sentence is a bit convoluted. You might make it a bit trimmer, on the lines of "When it became widely known in 1972 that some of these covers were being sold by a dealer for over a thousand dollars each, there was a considerable scandal…"
 * I love "F. Herrick Herrick". He sounds like something out of Wodehouse. (Mind you, I can't shout: my boss in the 1990s was the 8th Earl of Mansfield and Mansfield. As a lawyer you'll know about the 1st Earl.) Very wise to have added the hidden "Hands off!" notice.
 * Apparently he was involved in a very few B movies as an actor and director as he shows up on IMDB. Worden expresses some frustration that after all that, he never found out what the F. stood for.
 * We should be grateful. "F. Herrick Herrick" is perfect, and to discover that he was Fred, Frank, Felix, Finbar or Frodo would spoil it.  Tim riley  talk    20:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Background
 * You capitalise the P in "Apollo Program", as I think I probably would, but I suspect the MoS junkies may kick.
 * Preparation
 * "totalling 400 covers" – I thought the AmE spelling was "totaling", but ignore me if I'm talking rot.
 * Creation and spaceflight
 * "the 400 covers were transfered to the Lunar Module" – contrariwise, I wonder if the single "r" in "transferred" is correct AmE spelling?
 * Question asked from the standpoint of total ignorance: if the craft splashed down near Honolulu, why give the time in EDT?
 * I am not certain but that is also how The New York Times gives it in contemporary coverage. Possibly to have consistency between takeoff and landing.

I have nothing to add on the substance of the article. It seems to me to cover the ground fully but concisely, and the referencing is impeccable as far as I can see. Please let me know when you go to FAC. –  Tim riley  talk    17:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Distribution and scandal
 * "typed certifications onto 100" – I think "on" might be crisper than "onto" here.
 * "Per Scott's testimony" – my old Eng Lang master used to say "Prefer good English to bad Latin", and I'd be inclined to make "Per" into "By" or "According to" or some such.
 * Aftermath
 * Your closing sentences must be the best ever coda to any Wikipedia article. They gave me extravagant pleasure.
 * Thank you for the review and kind words; I've done those things. Yes, I was quite gleeful when I chanced across it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7
The article is in good shape. Mostly comments, things to consider, not necessarily requiring action. Errors are in red.
 * Why not add a picture of the whole Apollo 15 crew? My suggestion is File:Apollo 15 prime crew.jpg (right)
 * I do not understand the strange page numbers for Worden, Scott and Slayton's books Please replace with the proper page numbers.
 * I have the e-book editions and sometimes they use locations rather than the page numbers. I don't like having to use it but I don't have the physical books.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have all the physical books. Would you object if I added page numbers?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. I'm arranging to get a copy of Irwin's book, btw, though he seems to have had the least involvement with the covers.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have that one too. (You'll be disappointed.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All done.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * none of the crew ever entered space again The normal idiom would be "flew in space again".
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * the Space Age began with the launch of Sputnik I on October 4, 1957, astrophilately, or space-related stamp collecting, began The repetition of "began" is somehow jarring here.
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Nations including the United States and USSR issued commemorative postage stamps honoring the space program. Since the USA and USSR had separate programs, I would be more inclined to say "commemorating the space race"
 * Done, a bit differently.


 * cancelling these became a major part of the duties of the employees of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) post office on space mission launch days. Link Cancellation (mail)
 * Done.


 * such envelopes, which had not flown into space "been flown into space"
 * Done.


 * were often distributed to friends Whose friends?
 * From context, the astronauts. Clarified.


 * Onboard were Mission Commander David Scott, Lunar Module Pilot James Irwin and Command Module Pilot Alfred Worden. "Onboard" should be "On board" here. Also, we conventionally list crews in seniority order, so it should be Scott - Worden - Irwin
 * 15 of the 24 astronauts who entered space as Apollo Program astronauts prior to Apollo 15 Uh, there were only 23 astronauts. Eight missions, three astronauts each; but Jim Lovell flew on both Apollo 8 and Apollo 13, so only 23 astronauts. Re-check your source.
 * Modified.


 * Apollo 13 never reached the Moon or lunar orbit. It did fly around the Moon. Suggest re-wording.
 * Reworded.


 * Aside: Slayton was one of the Mercury Seven, the original astronauts, as was Alan Shepard, the commander of Apollo 14. They got to make up all the rules. And they were the worst offenders. In the early days, perks were freely offered; the job was seen as incredibly dangerous, as America's rockets were always blowing up. It was incredibly dangerous; of the thirty astronauts selected in 1959, 1962 and 1963, seven were dead by 1970. Scott was a veteran astronaut of the 1963 class who had flown with Neil Armstrong on Project Gemini in 1966, and as CMP of Apollo 9 in 1969. Worden and Irwin were rookies from the 1966 class. The successes of the Apollo missions made the public feel that Apollo 15 would be a milk run, not withstanding the near-disaster of Apollo 13, but Worden and Irwin were under no such illusions, and relied on Scott to get them back safely. I think this should be emphasised.
 * Slayton's role in all of this is interesting, but I've tried to avoid speculation in the article and will not do so here. I've added a couple of quotes from Worden and will add once I get the Irwin book. Or you can if you want to.


 * Cocoa Beach, Florida as local representative of Dyna-Therm Corporation Comma required after "Florida"
 * Done.


 * typo: "asistance"
 * Not finding it now.
 * I corrected it when I added the page numbers.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it Eierman or Eiermann?
 * Fixed.


 * The eight envelopes were apparently supplied by the Kennedy Space Center Philatelic Society What eight envelopes? You've lost me here. Were these the "eight with an Apollo 15 design"?
 * The question of whether Carsey's certification was proper was later the subject of an investigation by the Texas Attorney General. Could you say a bit more about this? What was the issue here?
 * Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Duplicate links: first day covers, USS Okinawa, Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences
 * Keeping the Committee one, losing the other two.


 * Don't link to Google books for Scott and Leonov. It's useless.
 * It's already gone.
 * I removed it when I added the page numbers.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Love the last line of the article.
 * Hope this helps.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A great deal! Thank you so much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A great deal! Thank you so much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08
I may make more comments later, but the one for now:


 * You should clarify on the point that the crew never flew in space again. I have read some things that say it is directly related to the stamp incident; I have read others that say many of the Apollo crews never flew again, and it is only a coincidence. You should collect both points of view and write them into the article neutrally.
 * I've added a bit more on this, but I'm not aware of sources that say it was entirely a coincidence. They were taken off the backup crew.
 * You are right; I must have confused it with another incident. I reviewed A Man on the Moon, where I thought I read the information, and it is not there.  Kees08  (Talk)  


 * May want to consider spelling it percent, since it is an article on American history per cent
 * Yes.


 * Order of refs, in case that wasn't intentional [91][35]
 * Done.


 * Note d could have a proper citation at the end of it
 * Since it is only supporting a note, I'm reluctant to put it in the bibliography. It seems simplest just to source it as it is. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)