Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/NASA space-flown Gemini and Apollo medallions/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 |
|---|
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.
- 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…
- same for flown/struck
- what is "Fliteline"?
- 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]
- 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 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
- 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
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, pls change "Flown" to something like "No flown" since the former makes the reader think of a date not a count. Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the dates supposed to be ranges? Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the last two are missing the provenance and the design. Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 3 December 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:
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]
|
- 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]
- Many thanks Giants2008 for your support and constructive comments.--Godot13 (talk) 01:51, 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]
- Nergaal- All added to lead. I have reservations about the auction values taking something away from it...--Godot13 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a shot and rewrote the intro a bit. Feel free to tweak it. Also, how about putting the medallions for SL-2, SL-3 and SL-4 here, so the Space Shuttle would be kept by itself? Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal- I'm doing some minor tweaking, but I like what you did with the lead. I have yet to find a solid image of each SL medallion I like, but I will keep looking to add in the future. It could, however, be in another list combining SL and the ISS...--Godot13 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a shot and rewrote the intro a bit. Feel free to tweak it. Also, how about putting the medallions for SL-2, SL-3 and SL-4 here, so the Space Shuttle would be kept by itself? Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal- All added to lead. I have reservations about the auction values taking something away from it...--Godot13 (talk) 00:03, 17 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]
- So if 440 were flown, 1 was presented to Schirra and the others were given to others? Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. Either given (by a purchaser) or purchased. Astronauts would pre-order with the flight office. I'm guessing there were no "extras" at the end of a mission. I think this is covered in the first paragraph under the heading Robbins Medallions...--Godot13 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So if 440 were flown, 1 was presented to Schirra and the others were given to others? Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 19 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 progressdone, 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]
- PresN - Many thanks for your helpful comments and support.-Godot13 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]