Exosquad was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 26, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

There's nothing in this article about the FASA lawsuit that took the show off the air. As I recall, the company who bought the toy rights to Robotech had bought them from a third party who didn't have any intellectual property rights to sell, resulting in a lawsuit from the legitimate owners of the intellectual property (FASA). These events led to a BattleTech television show being greenlit, complete with a toy line made by the same people who had been making the EXO Squad toys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.116.49.179 (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources for that. ( http://alex.kaempen.org/harmony_gold_v._fasa.html ) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battletech ) ( http://www.terrania.us/journal/2009/09/harmony-gold-vs-battletech-second.html ) ( http://www.terrania.us/journal/2009/09/harmony-gold-vs-battletech-second.html ) ( http://robotech.livejournal.com/9102.html ) ( http://terrania.us/hg-fasa/legal-5.txt ) ( http://alex.kaempen.org/harmony_gold_v._fasa.html ) ( http://www.qqmercs.com/?p=2859 ) The lawsuit seems to have been a really big issue in the fandoms at the time. The lawsuit clearly meets Wikipedia notability standards. A quick web search just turned up a BattleTech fan forum where people are still talking about this lawsuit over twenty years later. A section about the lawsuit should be added to this article. 23.116.49.179 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTIONS need to be made to this. The Battletech Toys were not made by Playmates. They were made by Tyco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.100.67 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've taken screenshots of all more or less important characters and E-frames, that 22 and 13 images respectively, each being roughly 14 kb big. Would it be OK if I uploaded them? --Koveras 16:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, I am the only one who cares, then... --Koveras 11:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I care! 198.6.46.11 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my name is Gerrald Kohn I'm 37yrs old young.I was onew of those exosquad fans back in the day.I used to wake up at 7:25a.m.just to watch an episode of it and I really enjoed the story.Over the years all type of old tv shows been coming back from the grave and I wondered,how come noboby went to cartoon network and tried to get a channel for all the old action cartoons? Like Thundarr the Barbarian,Conan,G-Force and the Transformers the first episodes and G.i.Joe. Everyones watching some of the same stuff we grew up one my generation was a funone it's seems like some people forgotit was any time my e-mail is Gerrkontheone@yahoo.com thanks for the ear..

Hi Gerrald. The answer to your question is two fold: One, it has to do with rights and liscensing. The same companies do not own all of those items, and so it can be difficult to have them all under one umbrella. Second of all: ratings. Cartoon Network actually DID liscense the rights to rebroadcast ExoSquad for a season, but when the ratings for it were insufficient for it's timeslot compared to other programs, they did not continue it. I'm a fan of Exosquad as well, however it seems that not enough people nationwide were, thus its cancelation in the first place, and why we will unfortunately probably never see a DVD release of the show. If it did not have good ratings when it originally aired, there's no reason for Universal (who owns the show) to believe it would be worth the investment to release it in that format. Elijya 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft science fiction or soft SF is science fiction whose plots and themes tend to focus on human characters and their relations and feelings, while de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws. In addition, "science" in soft science fiction often falls into the realm of things which current scientists consider impossible or at least highly unlikely. It is called soft science fiction by analogy to hard science fiction and because soft science fiction is often based around the 'softer' sciences (such as philosophy, psychology, political science, anthropology, and sociology).

— Wikipedia, Soft science fiction

• The plot of the series has emphasized relationships between characters and their feelings (rivalry between Thrax and Kaz Takagi, jealousy of Barca and Jubail towards Jonas Simbacca, intimate relationship between JT Marsh and Colleen O'Reilly disturbed once by Alice Noretti, etc.) while simultaneously leaving many technologies and inventions unexplained (cloaking devices, GRAF shield, E-frame neural interface, genetic manipulations by Dr. Ketzer, Fusion Pulse Cannon, etc.).
• Some of the technologies in the series are considered "impossible or at least highly unlikely" by modern science: concentration of gravitational fields, cloaking properties of dark matter, possibility of space flight at such distances and speeds (e.g. the distance between Mercury and Pluto is at least 5,855e9 km; New Horizons would have covered it in eleven and a half years - almost four times the duration of the war - and Resolute II was considerably larger than NH), etc.
• Psychology (particularily, xenophobia), political science (diplomatic negotiations, espionage, etc.) and philosophy (the question "What is human?") played a great role in the series.

Considering what was said above, I insist that Exosquad belongs to soft science fiction.

Hrm, when you put it like that, I suppose you are right. Raul654 11:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me, forgot to put my signature. ^^ As for the SSF, then I guess it's the vaguety of the term that is confusing. BTW, I think that Exosquad also belongs to military science fiction. --Koveras 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, is there a theoretical possibility that Exosquad becomes a featured article one day? %) --Koveras 23:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youy've put in alot of work pretty much single handedly to make this a great article, Kov. Unfortunately, I doubt there's enough interest in the series to warrant a spotlight on the article, as good as it is. Would be nice to see, though. Elijya 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I've thought, too. :( --Koveras 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (and I'm the featured article director). Featured article status is given regardless of the type of the material - it has to do solely with the quality of the article. Raul654 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know but AFAIK the featured article status can only be achieved by a vote majority. Therefore, if there isn't enough voters for the article, it's gonna stay a candidate forever. Or have I got a completely wrong idea?.. --Koveras 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's nominate it. Votes are given based on the quality of the article.--CloutierFan02 05:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be rejected without voting: a FAC cannot contain any unsourced statements. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statements gone!--CloutierFan02 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so is many relevant information. :) --Koveras ^☭ 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. All I removed were two sentences about the show's ratings.--CloutierFan02 21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the explanation of why the series was cancelled. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link on Patrick Danner's page that explains why it was canceled. I'll find some way to work it into the the page somewhere.

http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~pdanner/exo/faq/show.html#cancel

--CloutierFan02 05:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Should we now nominate it for featured article status? --CloutierFan02 05:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's still not good enough... It requires much more sources, more text detailing how it was produced and a critical reaction to the show. FA-reviewers are REALLY mean, they'll butcher such nomination within hours. :( I've nominated Madlax for FA, and it still hurts to reminisce about it... :( Right now the article is about B-Class. --Koveras ^☭ 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks. To provide more sources is a tall order, since Exosquad really doesn't have much presence on the internet. I'll scour the net over the next few days to come up with something, hopefully I'll find a few. --CloutierFan02 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Exosquad was totally forgotten for no reason, that's what makes it so difficult to write about it... I wish you have more luck with finding reviews than I did (granted, I wasn't very thorough about it). --Koveras ^☭ 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to ever make it to the FAC, following sections should be added:

• Characters (brief outline of all prominent factions and figures)
• Plot summary (complete but no longer than 4 paragraphs)
• Production (first of all, the reasons for the cancellation)
• Releases (dates of the first run, possibly consequent runs, release of the first season VHS)
• Franchise (use current "Other media" but more info on the toys and in prose instead of a list)
• Reception (the hardest part, I think)

"Themes" section can be expanded but must be properly sourced first. The latter remark goes for every other section, naturally, though less so for "Characters" and "Plot". The sources are always a hard thing to find but if you have enough enthusiasm, go for them first. Good sources are reviews and FAQs that have their own page that can be linked, whereas IMDb user reviews are bad sources (to much dismay) because they appear either randomly or all cluttered onto one page. Anyway, first see what can be extracted from Patrick Danner's site, then try googling, and post links to everything you can find of relevance here. --Koveras ^☭ 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've actually managed to find a review of Exosquad. ^^ It contains some obvious factual errors (like the dates), but it's the reviewer's opinions that matter and it has plenty. Plus, we can try exploiting Toonarific some more... Can become something. --Koveras ^☭ 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another review. --Koveras ^☭ 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought it was EXO Squad based on the logo? Can anyone clear this up?

There is no single way to spell the title: Partick Danner spells it "ExoSquad", IMDB (often considered the reference for movies and TV) and TV.com - "Exosquad", as you say, "EXO Squad" is also possible. According to Wikipedia conventions, whoever started this article probably decided to use the least brassy way to name it. :) --Koveras 11:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to create an account here to say that this is a great article. I loved Exosquad back in the day and it's nice to see the fantastic work that's been put into it. Good work on everything here and I'll be poking around to see if there's anything I can do to help it out even more. Nice job. Talon Razor 22:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) I'll take the credit for most of the text posted in this category, although User:Raul654, User:Elijya, User:SGCommand, User:SAMAS, User:Beatdown, and User:Nifboy contributed a whole lot, too. And of course, most of the information here was covertly taken from Partick Danner's fan site. %) --Koveras 11:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the shout-out, Kov, but it's really all you ;) Elijya 12:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted all the edits in the Exosquad cat, Elijya, and you've got a respectable number of them, so don't try to modestly sneak away. ;-P --Koveras 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you guys have written some great stuff. Here's hoping it gets to featured at some point!--Talon Razor 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the dates 2118-2120 AD come from?

The very first episode states 2118. Raul654 05:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, episode 6 states that it has been one years since the initial battles. Raul654 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have a set of the reproduced Robotech toys that were sold as some type of ExoSquad tie-in. Anyone have more information on what that was all about? There is a small bit of information in the main article but it's pretty limited 198.6.46.11 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some info in the exosquad faq linked to at the bottom of the page. --Starwed 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got on here to ask the same question. Thanks Starwed. 71.79.111.247 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL, "[e]xternal links should typically not be in the body of an article". Besides, since there is an interwiki prefix available for Wikiquote and Wikiquote is a sister project of Wikipedia, I believe it is best to stick to the old form. --Koveras ^☭ 09:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass - the prose is well-written.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass - the article is supported by numerous third-party references.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - the article contains all the major sections one would expect to find on an article about a television series.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass - although most of the comments are positive these are a reflection of other people's views and are cited as such.

5. Article stability? Pass - all the links work.

6. Images?: Pass - the images are appropriate and are accompanied by fair-use rationales.

Suggestions for improvement - The common rating box needs citations. The Exosquad articles, whilst categoried, may be well-served by a template box along the lines of that found on the Doctor Who article, for example. More detail about why the series was cancelled and some acknowledgement of negative reviews it received could be included. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the ref for the ratings but as for other things, I really lack sources for. :( --Koveras ^☭ 13:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the CG image of Phaeton that was uploaded as public domain says that it's from the "Exosquad revival project". Does anyone know anything about this? Does it deserve mention here? Even if it is fan made it could get a mention if it could be properly cited. Hewinsj (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a fan project to be mentioned in the article, it must receive favorable reviews from a well-established website or paper. The relevance criteria for non-official production are pretty harsh. And seeing how even Exosquad itself has trouble attracting enough attention from the so-called "well-established websites", I doubt the Revival Project will ever make it into the mainspace. As for information, refer to Exosquad (talk · contribs), he seems to be its lead. :) --Koveras ^☭ 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, and understood. I didn't know anything about it but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask before I do research on it. I figured it was just a fan project but I was curious to see if there was anything more to it than that. Hewinsj (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is inaccurate to say that Exosquad aired on Fox as if it was on a network block. While I am sure it was on Fox network affiliates, this was not the case in every market. Here in Los Angeles for example, it was carried for its entire first run by then-completely independent KCOP channel 13. A change should made to reflect that it was simply a syndicated show. It may have indeed been repurposed or most likely simply reran on USA cable network (possibly on its AXT block), but I am unsure of this.Kuahmel (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, right now, I have trouble finding any references at all, as to on which channels the show originally aired. That baffles me. :-/ I guess, the syndication info is part of the legacy from this article's editors before me... --Koveras ^☭ 08:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the opening is inaccurate. ExoSquad started on syndication on a wide spectrum of stations all over the country. In New York, it aired Sunday Mornings on WWOR-TV Channel 9 (which would become a UPN affiliate, if it didn't already at this time), at least the first season did. The moment it was cancelled, it began running reruns on the USA Network. It's an edit that should be made, but admittedly documentation for this is hard to come by. I don't even know where the documentation is that it aired strictly on FOX affiliates.--162.84.200.193 (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article cite as a reference Patrick Danner's personal fan site? I see a couple of items he quotes from a third party, but things like a toy list and his own hypotheses don't belong here. --EEMIV (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have better sources? Please post them here to help us improve the article. :) --Koveras ^☭ 07:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is already included... as an inline link in the media section."

Where's that? All I found was a footnote. Too many clicks. --64.149.36.182 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was talking about the footnote. And as for clicks, Wikipedia is not an advertising service, ergo a link to Hulu.com should be used just like any other primary source: in footnotes (if at all). --Koveras ^☭ 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion regarding Marsh's rank after his promotion in episode 2.23 ("Martian Luck"). I've rewatched the episode and what Admiral Winfield says around 1:27 in is: "Congratulations, Commander Marsh." Now, assuming the Exofleet uses the Royal Airforce rank ladder for its E-frame pilots, as it was assumed before, this can only refer to the rank of Wing Commander. Neovu79's recent edits, however, seem to assume that the Royal Navy ladder is used instead. On the other hand, Winfield doesn't say "Lieutenant-Commander" but rather full "Commander", implying that Marsh skipped one rank and went from Lieutenant directly to Commander, which isn't implausible as Winfield mentions that Marsh earned his promotion "a dozen times over". So the basic question is: what rank do we write down into the article(s) now: Lt.Cmdr., Cmdr. or Wing Cmdr.? --Koveras ^☭ 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Exosquad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

My main concern is the sourcing quality:

• Several unreliable or unreliable-looking sources:
  • Epguides.com
  • Evabeast.com (offline)
  • Storyboardpro.com
  • Several citations to this fansite which does not appear authoritative or reputable
  • A trivia section on TV.com, which is user submitted
  • Toonarific, which is also user submitted
  • This personal website.

Also, there are several unsourced statements throughout, some dating from 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever. --Koveras ^☭ 05:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wait, I misread the instructions. Since I did an individual reassessment, I can delist it myself. Koveras removed the {{maintained}} tag from the talk page, implying that he no longer seems interested in maintaining the page. For that, I will delist it as a GA due to serious concerns with bad source quality. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: If you are in the military, unless you are a Lieutenant, you don't get called. Lieutenant. For example. If you are a Lt. Colonel or Lt. General, you are addressed as Colonel or General. Same thing in the Navy. If your rank is Lt. Commander, people call you commander, unless you command a ship. Then they call you Captain. Regardless of your actual rank. So Marsh could be a Lt. Commander even if the Admiral calls him "Commander". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.185.93 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exosquad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012090621/http://epguides.com/Exosquad/ to http://epguides.com/Exosquad/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927022235/http://www.mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/techwar.shtml to http://www.mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/techwar.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exosquad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905150150/http://www.storyboardpro.com/exosquad/exosquad_landing_01.html to http://www.storyboardpro.com/exosquad/exosquad_landing_01.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]