Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions/archive1

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions

edit

NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers a lesser known aspect of the space program and the realm of space-flown memorabilia. Considered numismatic in nature (specifically exonumia), the practice of creating mission-specific space-flown medallions began with the Gemini Program and have been a part of the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and International Space Station missions. All but the Gemini program flights have been struck for NASA by the Robbins Company.--Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by note: I kind of take issue with the article title; it is very specific about "Robbins" "Apollo" missions, but the list itself has a big section on the Gemini non-Robbins medallions. I get that you're cutting off the list before the Skylab/Space Shuttle medallions, but the name doesn't match what you have here. And the Robbins bit is unnecessary; you're really talking about the "official" medallions, which were made by Robbins for the Apollo missions, but that's covered by the "NASA" qualifier. Maybe NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions? --PresN 17:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pres- Thanks for the drive by comment. I understand what you are saying. There are a few issues with the name change. There were other medallions (odds and ends) that flew on one mission or another and the regulation of those objects was not well documented. The reason Gemini was included in a list about Robbins medallions is based on the near complete lack of information about their origin, minting process, etc. which would make them virtually impossible to stand alone in a list/article. I suppose the "NASA" qualifier could cover the legitimacy of the Robbins and Fliteline medallions. With respect, I'd like to hear from another reviewer or two about the potential title change, but if there is a consensus for it, I have no issue making the change. Thanks again.--Godot13 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The name of the article sounds a bit fork-y. Any alternatives you could think of to make it sound more impactful to a wider audience?
    • I don’t think it resembles other existing titles in the space program but I’m happy to re-work it in conjunction with some of the concerns raised below (mainly about expanding the scope of the list).
  • Why are provenance entries hidden in footnotes?
    • They can be spelled out if you prefer.
To me that seems to make more sense. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Godot13 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a hidden legend for provenance would be useful for non-specialists. When I think of provenance I think of who manufactured it not who received it.
    • Provenance for collectibles and artworks generally denote the prior ownership of the object. In the case of these medallions, provenance accounts for a significant amount of the value. Also, I’m not quite sure what a hidden legend is…
I was thinking of {{[[Template:|]]}}. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not very clear what it exactly means; is a label notable/reputable enough to be worth mentioning? Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is noteworthy as the only name associated with the maker of the the first space-flown commemorative medallions (for the Gemini missions). I put them in this article because it makes this article stronger versus having one solid article (Apollo) and one weaker (Gemini). There are also hundreds of auction records all attributing the Gemini medallions to Fliteline.--Godot13 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unconfirmed" => "it is unclear"?
    • Fixed
  • intro does not discuss at all the first two sections, and they are not very well represented by the title.
    • I will work on expanding the intro to include them. As for the title, removing specific reference to Robbins opens to the door to several other short-lived medallion ideas that never lasted longer than a flight or two, but I’ll give it some more thought (per above).
  • at least two medallions are golden, and it is not obvious why
    • Two of the Fliteline medallions are gold-colored because the images were significantly better than any of the available silver-colored medallions for the same missions
      • nvm then
  • how come some were auctioned? maybe the auctioned value could be mentioned in the table?
    • All were auctioned. There is a brief section discussing collecting and auction results but I didn’t think it was wise to put a single value for a particular mission medallion as factors like condition, auction year, and provenance significantly affect the value (double or triple the price), and therefore it may not be representative of the prices in general. Nergaal- Thanks for taking the time to make comments, other than those items I said I would address, please let me know if my answers are satisfactory.--Godot13 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I completely missed that last section. The reason I was/am confused is that the section before says that the astronauts were barred from auctioning them, so to me it is not obvious how did they eventually get to be auctioned. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. Part of the NASA concern for profit came from a scandal involving postal covers (stamped commemorative cards) being sold by some astronauts to a stamp dealer. It led to Congressional hearings and some very strict policies afterwards. There is no way that these auctions could take place if the initial NASA policies were still in place (or enforced).--Godot13 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I have to confess that I'm disappointed that this list hasn't generated more commentary to this point. It's highly unique among candidates, and I think we should encourage such nominations whenever possible. To back up my words, I'll offer some thoughts:
  • I am in agreement with PresN that the title isn't ideal. Given the content, I'd co-sign his proposed name. The current title would only support having the Apollo medallions, but the article is clearly stronger with the Gemini ones and the title should be expanded to not sound like they should be excluded. -- Done
  • There should be a comma after the parenthetical bit in the first sentence. -- Done
  • There could be another comma after Massachusetts. -- Done
  • Gemini mission space-flown Fliteline medallions: Remove the comma inside "March, 1965". -- Done
  • The external links in the Provenance column likely go against the Manual of Style. I recommend turning them into references; it's fine to have more than one reference in the column if necessary. -- pending Done
  • Apollo mission space-flown Robbins medallions: Capitalize "games" by the Olympic part. -- Done
  • Robbins medallions: Space needed after Kennedy half-dollar. -- Done
  • The fourth column here isn't sorting properly. There are sort templates that will do the numbers correctly if you add them to each row. -- Done
  • Footnote 16 could use a citation. -- Done
  • Some of the items in the bibliography have ugly red text because of external links included with publishers. I'd suggest removing the external links, if only to get rid of the red. -- Done
  • Is there an ISBN available for the Still book? There is no ISBN in the book, and I was not able to find one online. The only reference number was by Amazon (ASIN B0006QD1WC).
  • Since the TharpeRobbins page isn't a print publication by the looks of it and has no page numbers, you can probably remove this from the bibliography and use it directly as a reference, as you do with the other web site pages cited. -- Done

Overall, it's a fascinating piece of work. If by chance this does get archived eventually, I hope to see it back here at some point. Hopefully, that won't be necessary, and these suggestions may be helpful if you want to avoid that scenario. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Giants2008- Thanks for the comments. All have been resolved (except the external links from the provenance column, pending). I have also moved the article to the name suggested by Pres and endorsed in your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else.-Godot13 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a way to reflect the title change in the FLC pages?--Godot13 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure whether moving the FLC to a new title will have any negative effects. Anyone else know? Meanwhile, from the resolved comments, the two multi-source Provenance column notes should have their references in numerical order, and the TharpeRobbins reference should have a publisher and access date added (switch the author template for the publisher one to make this easier). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I checked the reference and the prose is readable if one focuses, although it would be nice if alternate references were provided; also, you could try older archived versions from a few years ago to see if one of them reads better. Still, since the content is verifiable, I won't insist on replacement refs being provided. Overall, this appears to be a fine piece of work and I think it's worthy of attracting more reviews. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro currently only covers the background. It should contain stuff like x Gemini missions got medallions, and all the y Apollo missions did. In total, over z and w medallions were flown, and medallion v was auctioned in 19xy for $u. Also, provenance is still a bit too much of a jargon currently; what does "Presented to Wally Schirra by Neil Armstrong." mean? Armstrong gave it to Wally? Why? Nergaal (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list looks good, but I am still confused with the provenance. 440 medallions were flown in Apollo 11 and gifted? Or one was flown and then gifted, and then 439 copies made in advance were given to other people related to NASA? Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nergaal- The provenance is only for the illustrated/pictured medallion. In the number flown column, if there is only a single number, not in parentheses, that was the total number struck and flown. In some cases, not all the struck medallions could be flown, so the numbers indicate (total struck) and out of that number how many were actually flown.--Godot13 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the list looks good now. Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN

Doffing my delegate hat to review this list; it's not at the bottom of the pile yet but I like to see non-standard lists when they come through.

  • Oh man, that first sentence kills me with the nested asides, and it leaves the verb hanging around on its own. I thin it would sound better as "NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions were mission-specific commemorative medallions—often astronaut-designed—which were approved by NASA and carried aboard the mission spacecraft into orbit."
    • sentence replaced
  • Link Gemini in the lead
    • done
  • Do not italicize Fliteline in the lead; italics are not used for emphasis
    • fixed
  • The lead should mention the non-flown Apollo 1 medallion
    • in progressdone
  • Both the lead and the text should mention that Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo mission, thus explaining why 2-6 didn't get one
    • in progress
  • "other Mercury astronauts, and support staff becoming a short snorter" -> "other Mercury astronauts, and support staff, becoming short snorters"
    • done
  • I don't feel that an inline link to an image like "signed by him" is appropriate; it violates the guideline that links should not surprise the reader with where they go. If you want you can just stick the image above the other signed bill image on the right, even though it will extend down past the section: there's plenty of whitespace
    • done
  • "placed by astronauts and support crew personnel.[26][25]" - refs out of order
    • fixed
  • "bound by their employment contract not to commercialize the medallions[28]" - references shouldn't be in the middle of sentences without at least being after punctuation.
    • fixed
  • "One (or more) of the astronauts from the flight crew would work directly with the Robbins Company" - tense shift, should be "worked directly with"
    • fixed
  • "were struck in sterling silver.[29] but it is unclear whether serial numbers were added pre or post-flight." - sentence fragment. Whole combined sentence should be "The medallions were struck in sterling silver two to three months prior to the scheduled mission, though it is unclear whether serial numbers were added pre or post-flight.[29]". On that note, I'd like to point out that you have a tendency to have twisted sentences where you have a phrase starting off the sentence with the bit it attaches to coming later on; this can add a bit of flavor to the writing but you kind of overdo it, especially for encyclopedic writing. You actually do it with every sentence in this paragraph- you have a prepositional phrase setting off every sentence, with the verb they belong to several words later.
    • fixed the specific example above and several other instances in the paragraph
  • "Since 1995 there have been over 500 auction appearances (internet and/or live)" - cleaner as "Since 1995 there have been over 500 internet or live auction appearances"
    • done
  • It also might be nice to start off that sentence with "Despite the NASA prohibition on commercializing the medallions,"
    • done
  • Footnote 9 is missing a period
    • fixed
  • It would be nice to have ISBNs for all of the books
    • in progress done, but re: Relics by Still, no ISBN could be found
  • --PresN 02:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks good now. --PresN 19:15, 26 December 2015 (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_list_candidates/NASA_space-flown_Gemini_and_Apollo_medallions/archive1&oldid=1138488224"