Talk:Apollo 15 postal covers incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleApollo 15 postal covers incident is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
September 18, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 19, 2018Good article nomineeListed
January 20, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

"2 were Destroyed"?[edit]

Why were two destroyed? If they were destroyed deliberately, why? If by accident, why only two? Were they left on the Moon? CFLeon 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two destroyed covers were damaged prior to being packaged for spaceflight and never flew to the Moon. The article, as written currently, is incorrect in stating that there were 400 flown covers. --Collectspace 03:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one?[edit]

See this completed eBay listed, sold for $1,800: It says there were only 36 of this type... http://www.ebay.com/itm/APOLLO-15-SIGND-CVR-FLOWN-MOON-W-COPY-LTR-AUTHENTICATN-AL-WORDEN-HV83-/200666432577?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb8a6c441

(eBay item 200666432577)

Tim-mnm (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

The accounts here, in Apollo 15, and now inadvertantly :-) , astrophilately, should probably be coordinated better, with the bulk of the narrative here so as to not maintain multiple slightly-different versions. "Apollo 15 flight cover scandal" would be a better title, since the objects at issue were whole covers, not just the stamps. Stan 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion to merge entries, but this entry in particular is inaccurate. To call it a scandal in the title is also likely too strong a word; "incident" is probably more accurate. All three entries as they are presently written seem to pull information from unconfirmed third-party sources. I think it would be best to limit the entry(ies) to the facts presented within the linked NASA report and what little is written by the crew members. (Sieger's account would also be valid source material, though to my knowledge, he has never chosen to share his view.) --Collectspace 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Incident" would be OK; scandal suggests that wide publicity is a part, and certainly this did not get much notice at the time. The collectspace.com article does cite four references, so I think it's likely to be pretty solid. Probably those works reference Worden's court papers and the like as their primary sources. Stan 06:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The collectSPACE article to which you refer (Profiles In Memorabilia: The Apollo 15 "Sieger" Covers) was recently (and temporarily) removed* from the site due to questions raised about some of the information it presented. Three of the four sources cited were third-party; the only direct reference was Irwin's "To Rule The Night"). To my knowledge, none referenced the Worden court papers, which I have never seen made public (Worden to date is the only Apollo 15 astronaut to not have gone on the record about what transpired.) That is why I suggested limiting the article(s) to only the NASA, astronaut and Sieger records, as exist. (* I am the editor of collectSPACE.) --Collectspace 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, interesting... Third-party references are not intrinsically defective, but if there is reason to believe they're not authoritative, or their own research is defective, then either we alter our text from "X happened" to "According to Y, X happened" (a standard practice for WP articles on controversial subjects), or remove altogether. Do you want to make a pass at fixup, or should I? I have no refs for the subject myself, so am somewhat handicapped. Stan 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The just-linked-to de: version of this article has a bunch of references to (English-languge) printed works that would be worth checking out. Stan 19:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed (moved) the article to Apollo 15 postage stamp incident; I agree with what's been said, calling it a scandal is inappropriate. I mean, imagine telling someone who didn't know at all about this incident: "So on Apollo 15, three astronauts risked their lives to fly to the Moon -- for which the US government paid them $30 -- and since they took along some stamps, they were all fired. And, oh, they decided before being found out not to accept the money from it, and as it turns out, they probably just forgot to notify NASA -- they'd had a hundred other stamps authorized." --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved section from David Scott[edit]

The "history" section was originally written as part of the David Scott article and moved here. Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo 15 postage stamp incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 15 postage stamp incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to 'Apollo 15 postal covers incident'. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 15 postage stamp incident → Apollo 15 crew-carried mail incident – The current title implies the incident was about postage stamps. That is blatantly not the case, it is about the covers carried by the crew on the mission, so should reflect the essential facts and define the topic per WP:PRECISE and would then comply with WP:CRITERIA too. I doubt using the term covers in the title would be useful to readers without some philatelic knowledge. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "mail", none of the covers ever entered the mailstream. Maybe "Apollo 15 postal covers incident"?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "postal covers" language, per nom and Wehwalt. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely certain "mail" is correct but I tried to choose a word that regular non philatelic readers could understand. "Special event covers", as described in the first paragraph, is what they are but that just seems too long winded. On the other hand "envelopes" seems to miss the point too though I'm open to suggestions. While they did not actually enter the mailstream, "mail" describes their essence and, as created, were in an acceptable mailable format for the USPS except for the address. So maybe Apollo 15 crew-carried postal covers incident is a suitable compromise. ww2censor (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Apollo 15 astronaut postal covers incident"? It's obviously the "crew-carried" that gives me pause.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shorter language sounds better to me too. And a postal cover is probably more known than is being guessed at here (or not, but it is accurate). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Apollo 15 postage stamp incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Looking forward to reviewing this article about this unfortunate incident. Hoping to have it done within the next week, but we are expecting a typhoon this weekend, so power may be a bit iffy in the coming days; sorry in advance for that! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to some life events, I will have to take a few days away from this article. I should be back by October 6 at the latest. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Lead
    Introduce the scandal in the first sentence, with something along the lines of "The Apollo 15 postage stamp incident was a NASA scandal involving the crew carrying 400 unauthorized postal covers to the moon's surface." I know it seems like small details, but the opening sentence just states the covers were unauthorized, and there's no mention for several sentences about the resulting scandal.
    I would recommend reducing the amount of words in the sentence about Sieger selling the covers, as the current sentences read very abruptly. Additionally, I would cut down on some of your colloquialisms, as it is not encyclopedic style. Additionally, I would leave out some details for the body of the article. My recommendation is "One hundred of the envelopes were found to be sold by a West German stamp dealer, resulting in a scandal over the unauthorized sale."
    I have rewritten the lede paragraph (and adjusted further down to fit) in line with your advice, though taking a slightly different approach to the wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend editing your introductory sentence for the lead section, as it comes across as a narrative, rather than an encyclopedic entry. Additionally, you want to avoid words such as "considerable," as that is not an objective size of a scandal. The same goes for later in the lead section when "generally known" is used, as that is difficult to cite.
    I don't see any need for a formula like "The Apollo 15 postage stamp incident was a 1972 American scandal". A narrative sentence introducing the sentence is useful when the formula I set out before isn't appropriate. For example, see William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896 "In 1896, William McKinley was elected President of the United States."
    The section about the actual flight belongs later in the article. The lead section should just summarize the events (covers being brought to the moon to be sold, the resulting scandal when the deal was exposed, and the punishment of the astronauts).
    As far as I can tell, in the lede, there is no specific area that discusses the Apollo 15 mission in general. It's all from the perspective of the covers.
    I like your last paragraph about the astronauts leaving NASA and suing in the future, as well as the 2014 sale of the stamps.
    Background
    " By the time of Apollo 15 (1971), such envelopes, which had not been flown into space but were autographed by the crew, were often gifts for the astronauts' friends, or for employees of NASA and its contractors." It's extraneous to say that this occurred by the time of Apollo 15, as that is implied by giving the background to the scandal. Also, I would recommend shortening this sentence, such as "unflown autographed envelopes" instead of "such envelopes, which had not been flown into space but were autographed by the crew", and it should be "gifts to the astronauts'..." vs. "gifts for"
    I've shortened it but "gifts for" is proper and "gifts to" doesn't sound quite right to my ear.
    Remove "Beginning in the late 1960s," and "(an office whose duties included aiding astronauts in the time leading up to their spaceflights)" as that is extraneous info in a very long sentence.
    I've dropped it to a footnote. It's not extraneous. It is necessary to establish that Collins acted on behalf of the astronauts rather than on his own. It's background for the first paragraph of "Creation and spaceflight" and knowing who he is is key to understanding Scott's statement about allowing Collins to assist him, in the third paragraph of that section.
    "Although it was not publicly known until September 1972, 15 of the men who entered space as Apollo Program astronauts prior to Apollo 15 had agreed with West German named Horst Eiermann to autograph 500 philatelic items (postcards and blocks of stamps) in exchange for $2,500." Definitely recommending shortening this sentence. My take is removing the "publicly known" part, and stating "Fifteen of the Apollo astronauts prior to Apollo 15" and then also reducing the Eiermann description with "agreed to autograph philatelic items in exchange for $2,500 each." This demonstrates that each astronaut received the money, and cuts down on a very wordy sentence.
    I think the question of public knowledge is one of the key elements of the article. That this took place out of the public eye helped preserve the image of the Astronaut Corps. If this is excluded, than the reader, who likely wasn't following this in 1972, will be very surprised by the furore over the covers when the covers issue became public. These things were not known to the public at the time of Apollo 15.
    "This included a member of each mission between Apollo 7 (1967) and Apollo 13 (1970). Covers were flown on Apollo 11, Apollo 13 and Apollo 14. Ed Mitchell, Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 14, took his to the Moon's surface in a PPK." This is confusing, as it states that all Apollo mission 7-13 had covers, but then only lists 3 missions, one of which is not included in the original range.
    I've separated the descriptions a bit.
    I would recommend moving the part about Scott cancelling the first day covers to the "Creation and spaceflight" section, as it is not background info about the scandal, but rather actions that the commander took that led to the scandal.
    Scott cancelled only the one cover on the Moon, and that was for the Postal Service. It had nothing to do with the covers that the crew brought. It is in there as background to the cataloguing of the covers that were brought on Apollo 15 in the "Creation" section.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remove the quote from Irwin. It doesn't say much, as the information from his book is already in the previous sentence, and it is just Irwin affirming that there were negative consequences for their actions.
    Preparation
    Major feedback for this section would be paraphrasing some of the direct quotes. There are a lot of statements that don't have any additional impact as a direct quote, such as "friend of ours at the Cape," "I admit that this is wrong. I understand it very clearly now. But at the time, for some naive and thoughtless reason, I did not understand the significance of it," and "I didn't want to do anything that would embarrass either myself or NASA, and I believed Herrick was as good as his word. It was a huge lapse in judgment on my part to trust this stranger. I was too old to believe in Santa Claus." I would recommend taking a look at this section and removing most, if not all, of the quotes.
    I see this as a BLP issue; two of the A15 astronauts, Colonel Scott and Colonel Worden, are alive. I think that given the unfortunate nature of this article, that they should be allowed their own voice to explain their actions. A summary and paraphrase isn't as effective. Regarding "friend of ours", that is a characterization that seems, on the surface, at some variance with Worden's book account, so I'd rather render it as a quote and let the reader make of it what they will.
    The way you use the quotes is in compliance with WP:QUOTATIONS, but I just think there is an excessive amount of quotes in this section. I agree that you should use the arguments of the astronauts themselves, especially considering that they are both alive, but I think there are some quotes that don't really add to the overall narrative. I think an appropriate way to use some of the more mundane quotes would be to paraphrase them, and provide the quotes themselves in a note.
    Fair enough point, I'm a lawyer and tend to use quotes more than some. What I've done is paraphrase two quotes in this section that did not appear to be needed. The "friend of ours at the Cape" is difficult to paraphrase as Scott, in testifying, used "us" and "we" a lot, and Worden felt in his memoir that Scott overused it to evade responsibility. So I'd rather give the quote.
    I recommend consolidating the first two sentences, such as "In 1970, Eirmann met Hermann Siege, a West German stamp collector, as the KSC"
    I don't like that as it characterizes Eiermann as first and foremost a stamp collector. I've played with the text there.
    I recommend consolidating the sentences about Deke Slayton's requirements, such as "by astronauts, and required that the items be listed
    Merged two sentences into one.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "a Los Angeles firm which was a NASA contractor" I would recommend "a Los Angeles firm working as a NASA contractor"
    I'm not clear on why this should be changed. Companies are described as NASA contractors in sources I've seen, rather than working as same.
    My thought process is that a contractor is, by definition, and outside company that has been charged with working with another organization. Your way of writing it isn't wrong; to me it just sounds better to describe the firm as working with NASA rather than a NASA contractor.
    Ah! I see your point. "NASA contractor" is a term of art, used in the Code of Federal Regulations. Probably they got more press in the late 60s/early 70s than they did today.
    I would consolidate the sentences about Worden and Scott's conflicting testimony about Slayton's involvement in a dinner event. My take is that you don't need to include the in-line attributions, as they are already cited.
    The stories are not the same, and Slayton seems the major difference. Scott hasn't talked a great deal about this incident, but he's mentioned Slayton as well in a message excerpted in the Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal. Slayton's role in this is not trivial and I'd like the reader clear on who is saying what.
    "A further 144..." I would replace 'further' with 'additional'
    Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "The astronaut also related in his autobiography his insistence that the covers must be held" Remove the in-line attribution, stating instead "Warden insisted that the covers must be..."
    I do not doubt the word of an American hero like Colonel Worden, but plainly there's been enough errors of memory and similar over almost a half century that I don't really want to phrase that in Wikipedia's editorial voice. The question of holding the covers is plainly where there were contradictions between Scott/Worden and Eiermann/Sieger. There's some allusion to this point in the transcript but no one ever comes out and says what Eiermann and Sieger had to say, though they were interviewed by State Department people.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation and spaceflight
    "Worden recalled that Herrick arranged for a commercial artist with whom the astronaut had discussed the envelope." Two things: I recommend removing the "Worden recalled" as we are aready citing him. Additionally, what astronaut is being referenced in this? I presume its Worden, but this sentence doesn't flow smoothly.
    Rephrased.
    "Herrick later sent Worden 100 envelopes depicting the phases of the Moon. The astronaut also had in his possession 44 first day covers" I would recommend cutting this down to one sentence, such as "In addition to Worden's 44 first day covers, Herrick sent him 100 envelopes depicting the phases of the Moon."
    Rephrased.
    "All except the 400 had been approved by Slayton" This come across as confusing. I'd say something about "All but 400 of the covers had been approved by Slayton" to specify what the 400 count is.
    I've rephrased.
    I would remove the quote from the reporter. It is not a personal quote from any of the astronauts or anyone significant to the story, and should be paraphrased or removed.
    Slayton is very significant to this story, and his role in this is in my view insufficiently explained. I am reluctant to paraphrase, because that is the way POV sneaks in. This helps set up, textually, the episode where Slayton removes the three as backups for Apollo 17.
    "Normally, if the Flight Crew Support Team found that an item was not on an astronaut's PPK list, they would add it, but James L. Smotherman, head of the team, said that he "goofed". Smotherman explained he had confused the 400 covers with the Herrick covers, which had been approved by Slayton." This should be cut down. Explain that Smotherman made a mistake with the covers and those approved by Slayton, but this should be one sentence, and shoudn't use a one-word quote.
    It was two words before the GOCE edit. I am not prepared to state in Wikipedia's editorial voice that Smotherman made a mistake. I am prepared to say that Smotherman SAID he made a mistake, which is what the source says. I've played around with the language a bit
    "was the last I heard or thought of about the covers until after the flight ... What arrangements Dave [Scott], Eiermann, and Sieger made to get the covers onto the flight, I never knew until later. Dave later told a congressional committee that he had placed them in a pocket of his spacesuit, but he never shared that information with me". This should be reduced to a paraphrased section; it is several sentences long and just is an explanation from Worden that he was unaware of the situation.
    One that is contradicted, to some extent, by reference to the CM transcript in the quote box, and by Worden's 1972 testimony. Since we have no canonical version of many of these events, it is best to put the info in front of the reader.
    I would remove the last paragraph of this section. It doesn't say anything about the incident itself, and is just the word of Worden expressing joy about the mission.
    It's needed for balance. If it is not there, we are left with the image of the aftermath of a Moon mission, a tremendous accomplishment, being the division of the spoils.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it is needed for balance in this section. While I'm not disputing the success of the Apollo 15 mission, this article is about the scandal itself. Worden's comments that the mission was a success are more appropriate in the Apollo 15 main article.
    Very well, cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Distribution and scandal
    I would consolidate the first 4 sentences into 2. One sentence to explain that C.G. Carsey had certified the stamps as a notary, and the other about how Scott and Irwin certified the authenticity of the stamps.
    I've cut back to three sentences. These are prominent features of the Sieger covers and we should tell the reader how they came to be on the envelopes.
    "Sieger began to market the covers, selling them at a price of DM 4,850 (about $1,500 at the time), though he allowed some discount for customers who bought more than one." I would cut down on this with something like "Sieger marketed the covers at DM 4,850, and provided a bulk discount to customers"
    I've done that in a slightly different form.
    "Worden recalled in his book..." I would cut down on this and the following few sentences. As you are citing Worden, you don't need to specify that it was from his book. My take is along the lines of "Worden sent 44 covers to Herrick soon after returning, keeping 60 covers for himself and giving 28 covers to friends."
    This is the same point as before. There are various versions of the story. I believe that given the various contradictions and the fact that all the stories cannot be true, that the reader is best served by inline attribution. If I did not, they would accept it as fact and ignore the reference. If took out the attribution to Worden re the covers being discussed in flight, the article would be in conflict with the first quote box, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "On November 5, Slayton responded, saying NASA could not confirm whether it was genuine." I would change that to "...Slayton responsed that NASA could not confirm if it was genuine"
    I would remove the sentence about Worden writing an angry letter, as it doesn't play a role in the rest of the paragraph.
    It is part of the chronology and shows Worden's reaction to Slayton's warning.
    I would remove the Irwin quote about things remaining quiet, as it doesn't read well with the rest of the paragraph.
    Cut with some reluctance. The time it took for NASA to react does seem long, even in a pre-Internet era.
    Aftermath
    I would greatly reduce the first paragraph, mostly stating the Worden was informed by Slayton to leave NASA and return to the Air Force, despite Worden's wishes, and explain that he eventually worked at the NASA Ames Research Center
    I've cut most of the matter and merged what was left into the second paragraph.
    Watch the tense on your sentences in the second paragraph. "Irwin retired in 1972, founding an evangelical group." Should be "Irwin retired in 1972 and founded an evangelical group"
    Done.
    "The remaining covers in the astronauts' control, 298 from the group of 400, and 61 more from Worden, were held by NASA amid the investigation" This reads awkwardly, and should be streamlined.
    I've put the numerical info in parens.
  1. "There was a Justice Department investigation into the covers. 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." This should be one sentence.
    Merged.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I like the meta aspect of Worden commenting on the Wikipedia article, I don't think it merits sufficient notability to be included in the article, and Irwin died in 1991, so that's what we've got.
    If it were just a shaggy dog story, I would resist the temptation. But it does carry the serious purpose of showing his point of view after over 40 years. From what I have read, Colonel Scott doesn't talk about the matter
    I would remove the Chaikin quote. While I like that book, I don't think adding Chaikin's specific comments are necessary, as he is a historian that is retelling the chain of events. I think his insights into the end of the the Perfect Astronaut myth should be referenced and paraphrased in the Aftermath section.
    I feel it is useful in several ways. First, in showing several things we don't deal with in the article, astronaut reaction, and public image. Secondly, I don't have a lot of historical viewpoint for the covers affair, so it is harder to use in text than if I could bury it in a paragraph. Third, it's a well-known book, perhaps the most prominent on Apollo, so the fact that Chaikin wrote it is significant and would be lost to paraphrasing, even if the reader bothered to look at the citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do disagree, as I think the quote is not necessary. However, you bring up a good point about the lack of historical context; I don't think the quote detracts in any way. Plus, if it gets one more person to read A Man on the Moon, I consider that a win!
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    "The eight Irwin Apollo 15 envelopes were apparently supplied by the Kennedy Space Center Philatelic Society." Remove 'apparently,' as that should be clear from the source.
    The source prefaces the info with "As we understand it, ..." The "apparently" serves the same purpose.
    "Probably before they made an official NASA trip to Europe" This should not be a probably statement, either it is true or not.
    Scott and Irwin said different things on this point. I have no objective data to make a determination.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Do you have a link for the New York Times article ""Atronauts [sic] and Space Officials Heard at Inquiry on Exploitation of Souvenirs?" I was unable to find it while searching on the website. I know it will be a print-edition article and the link will just be a scanned image of the newspaper page, but I think it would be helpful to include that.
    No, there are a large number of press clippings attached to the 8/3/72 transcript as exhibits and I used some of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation for future articles that cite different pages from the same book would be to have a named reference for the book itself, and just use the "rp" tag to cite the pages. I think it comes across as neater. However, this is just my opinion and not a hit on this article; there are plenty of articles, including the Featured Article for Neil Armstrong, that use your method of citation.
    I will look at that articles. Thank you for the advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    A lot of your references are behind paywalls. As most of those references come from sources that would likely be public domain, such as Senate and NASA proceedings, are there any open source options for the references?
    If you send me an email, I can send you a copy.
    I'm not doubting the sources, but I think for the sake of open research, it would be best if the references were not behind a paywall. If no such avenue exists, that's fine, but I'm just curious if there are any versions that don't require a subscription to access, they are mostly public events, not academic papers.
    I just looked again and did not see anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the references for Al Worden's book appear to contain references to the 4,000+ page in the book. Please check this, as the book is only a few hundred pages long.
    Those are Kindle locations, which is disclosed at the top of the reference section. Hawkeye7 was also good enough to put in the actual pages.
    C. It contains no original research:
    "Astrophilately was most popular during the years of the Apollo Program's moon landings from 1969 to 1972." The article cited doesn't appear to say that astrophilately was the most popular during the moon landing era. Is there a source to show that popularity peaked during the space race?
    The source says "Astrophilately was born soon after the launch of the first ever earth orbiting satellite, the Soviet Union’s Sputnik on 4th October 1957, reached its peak during the Apollo mission years 1969—1972 when it was very near the top of the thematic interest lists and continues to engage and fascinate thousands of collectors all over the world." "its peak" combined with the "very near the top of the thematic interest lists" is the support for "most popular" then.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No concern. Earwig lists a 33.8% similarity to other articles, and most of the similarities are from titles or common phrases.
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    It definitely covers all of the aspects of the scandal. No concern.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    As indicated by my comments above, I think this article could be a bit shorter and lighter on the details. However, that is an opinion of mine, and I don't consider the article excessively detailed.
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No concern.
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No concern.
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No concern.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    I would remove the "Space mail" part of the caption of the picture of Scott cancelling envelopes on the moon.
    I would also move the picture of Scott cancelling envelopes to the right side of the article, or up in the article. The way the page currently renders has it indenting the title and 1-3 lines (depending on screen resolution) of the 'Preparation' section
    Include the names (and link to their pages) of the other astronauts in the 2016 picture with Worden
    I'm going to put this change in, as it is relatively minor, and then pass the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I have completed my initial review of the article, and will be placing it on hold. My apologies that this took so much longer than anticipated. I think you have done a very good and thorough job with this article; my only criticism is an overuse of quotations. You have raised a good point about wanting to demonstrate when the article may be relying on biased or uncertain information, but I think it's better to err on the side of removing uncertain small details rather than include the different opinions. Please let me know if you have any questions; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am passing this article. While we politely butted heads on some of your style choices, I would like to reiterate that I think you have done a very good job with this article. It is clear that you put a lot of work in, and I'm happy to pass it. Until next time!Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I had not actually finished implementing your comments. I do plan to keep looking for unnecessary quotes per your comments. Thank you for your work in reviewing, for spending time at what seems to have been a busy moment in your life.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing[edit]

I wanted to ask Czar how they feel now about the sourcing? The reports and such are actually secondary sources in my view, taken from the investigation, papers of which would be the primary source. I've asked NASA about those papers btw but they don't think they have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At second glance, the sources don't appear much different from last time. My concern was less that primary sources are used but that the article as a whole relies more on primary/affiliated sources than secondary/independent sources. I can pull all kinds of documentation on government investigations but that doesn't mean the underlying topic is notable unless also picked up (significant coverage) by secondary & independent sources. If the topic (postal covers incident) is independently notable from Apollo 15, it should split out summary style based on a preponderance of coverage from such secondary/independent sources, not based on potential expansion from affiliated reports. My understanding is that, as a tertiary source, we take our cues/proportionality from what secondary sources choose to cover. So if no outside/independent source finds select aspects of the investigation sufficiently noteworthy to warrant coverage, then we would too find those same aspects insufficiently noteworthy to warrant coverage from us as a tertiary source. The exceptions should be sparse, to fill in crucial detail, and not compose the bulk of the article. Does that make sense? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at it again. I shall give some thought on what to do next.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually quite surprising you have not included any citations from philatelic publications or websites. So, it surprises me there actually seems to rather little immediately available though considering the time, printed works are more likely to be a source as opposed to online. I found some references in my copy of the American Air Mail Catalogue 5th ed published in 1985 by the American Air Mail Society which 2 pages of details (pgs 2635-6). There may be a newer edition. Also a small mention in Air Mail, an illustrated history 1793–1981 by Donald B. Holmes. There really has to be more material available but a search of Linns Stamp News brings up nothing which surprised me. You could also search the American Philatelic Research Library's catalog at https://stamps.org/Learn/Library. Just some ideas for you to seek support for secondary WP:RS. ww2censor (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I will look into it. If I sent you an email, could you send me scans of those short articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Send me an email. ww2censor (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siegel[edit]

Is "Robert E. Siegel, a prominent New York dealer" actually Robert A. Siegel? JennyOz (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an error in the underlying source. Fixed and linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wehwalt JennyOz (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who knew?[edit]

Never heard of any of this before. Articles like this are why I read Wikipedia (almost) every day. Eric Cable  !  Talk  19:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had only vague recollections of it myself, but someone mentioned it to me online and well, it's an incredible story.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's funny, I remember reading about this here a while ago, but there's more detail added and it's a regular soap opera. Fascinating, really, to hear about the goings-on behind the scenes that no one knew about for so long. Sure adds flavor to the astronauts' stories! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.39 (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put a lot of effort into this one. Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition re " thereby effectively rescinding charges of impropriety by the astronauts."[edit]

I've looked at the addition, I don't seem to find support for that statement in the Slate article on the sculpture, to which you've cited. Buffs, can you point me at it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! "Only after the post-Apollo hangover had subsided did NASA reconsider its position regarding the postage stamp incident. A 1978 investigation by the Attorney General’s Office largely exonerated Scott, Worden, and Irwin. Five years later, NASA returned the stamp covers to the astronauts, effectively rescinding the accusations.". Perhaps it would be good to get that quote in the direct reference? The Slate article IS kinda long. Buffs (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm OK with adding in the discussion of the settlement that Slate says that this "effectively rescind[ed] the accusations". I think it's a little too much of a conclusion on Slate's part to be used without inline mentioning who said it. So I think it should be in the Aftermath section, not in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's too much of a conclusion, but we can make the lead more broad/less specific (so one "side" isn't left out) by leaving out the rationale. We can just say that the covers were returned. But I'll leave that to your judgement (or anyone else's). Buffs (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the 1978 Justice Department report, it's a source in the article, and it really only goes to the ownership of the covers. Anyway, let me think about it and take another shot at it and we'll see who salutes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, but I think the "exoneration" portion is worth putting in there. NASA ok'd it either tacitly or explicitly. The Astronauts had no intention of breaking any rules, even if Congress wanted to skewer NASA. I'll leave it to everyone else to make any changes; I've made my point and it's in the body of the article, even if not the lead. Buffs (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worden's lawsuit[edit]

I've trimmed some of the detail regarding the lawsuit that I find interesting as a lawyer myself but which perhaps is too much detail for the general reader in an article where the lawsuit and settlement are only a small part. Also, Worden's books should be approached cautiously since, possibly due to the passage of time, some of the things he says regarding the covers are contradicted by the other memoirs, such as Scott's, or by primary documents, such as the mission transcripts. Wehwalt (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_15_postal_covers_incident&oldid=1204908607"