- 1 FA status
- 2 Info from plaque
- 3 This entry *really* about the Equinox?
- 4 Voyager conspiracy
- 5 Warp
- 6 PNA/FA for over a year?
- 7 Where Does this Info Come From?
- 8 Peer review
FA nomination (01 Jun - 26 Jul 2004, Successful)
Self-nomination. A detailed analysis of the ship's voyage - IMO, a change from the (somewhat necessarily) formulaic nature of the starship entries. -- Michael Warren 00:51, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- Seconded. Nice detail for a "generic" starship article. -- Dan Carlson 16:35, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Opposed. It's a very good article, especially for a ship only mentioned in two eppisodes. However, the ammount of info available is irrelevant when featuring an article. And IMO this article does not messure up with the rest of the featured articles. No offence, how could it with so little info to go on. It's good, but not good enough to be featured.-- Redge 15:39, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
The article is not of the same type as other featured articles, so should not be compared with them. I believe this article meets the majority of criteria that are covered in Memory Alpha:The perfect article. On amount of info available and length, I refer you to the point This may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject. However, where such information is available, it should always be included. -- Michael Warren 18:31, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- I still think that this article qualifies for Featured Article status. As long as it's well-written and of reasonable length, I think it's acceptable. (Articles that are just two or three paragraphs wouldn't be long enough, IMO, but something longer should.) -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)
- In that case I'd say it's a great article and I'll second it for featured article. -- Redge
Removal of featured status
I just made a thorough sweep of this articles page history and the page history for featured articles and this article was _never_ legitimately voted, much less nominated, for featured article. The tag was added a long time ago, but never the less, we do not have a grandfather clause to simply allow it to remain, not to mention how drastically the page has changed since it was tagged to justify keeping it as a featured article without going through the normal removal process. --Alan del Beccio 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems I must recant the above statement, as I guess the two week scan of nominations prior to this addition was not "thorough" enough. After some further digging, I found that it was indeed nominated, legitimately, it just apparently took 44 days to add the featured template!!! I will now be readding the proper template. --Alan del Beccio 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
FA removal (04 Jun - 12 Jun 2008, Successful)
The USS Equinox article was self-nominated in June 2004 and did not meet today's criteria of nominating a featured article. According to the talk page, it was nominated, seconded, and received one additional vote only after having the criteria clarified by MA founder Dan Carlson.
To confuse things further, in November 2006, it was labeled PNA while still being labeled featured! Three months later, Alan questioned the legitimacy of the FA voting and removed the featured tag out of hand, but left the PNA. This is the way it was for nearly a year when records of the voting finally turned up. Alan archived the vote on the talk page and the FA tag was reinstated in February 2008. It still retained the PNA tag, though, until Cleanse removed the PNA two months later.
While I understand that this was a good article when it was written, it has had some major changes and issues with it in the four years since it was declared a featured article. Does it live up to the high standards we hold featured articles to today? – Topher 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think this article is still deserving of FA status. In my opinion, the article itself is detailed enough and there are a decent amount of images to compliment it. TrekFan 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal suggestion. The very shaky "FA history" of this article makes it a bad example to present as "our best work". At least, it should have another FA nomination discussion, and this suggestion would be the first step for that... (For the record, I personally don't think that this is still "the best" we have to offer, in any case.) -- Cid Highwind 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with Cid that the weak justification for remaining an FA would call for another nomination. I agree the article is not our best work today.– Cleanse 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support removal. I agree with Cid and Cleanse's words.--31dot 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Article removed from FA list, per majority.– Cleanse 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
FA nomination (28 June - 13 July 2010, Failed)
- Self-nomination: With help from Defiant and I'm sure other community members I believe I have this article meeting all of the qualifications of "Featured Article" status. We know a little bit more about the Equinox then most "ships of the week" and I believe that I have incorporated all the information available on the ship in a well formatted, easy to read, and to-the-point manner. --Nero210 23:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Support. - Archduk3 05:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Obey the Fist!! 18:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Support. -Mdettweiler 18:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, Even though well written and organized, this seems more like an extended episode summary of "Equinox", rather than just an article about the USS Equinox. I understand there is not much to work with when this ship only appeared in one episode essentially, but that doesnt mean the story of the episode has to be retold here once again for lack of more info otherwise. – Distantlycharmed 20:13, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- You'll excuse me if I find the timing suspect here DC. What changes in particular could be made to this article? I only ask so this can't be considered anything but a valid criticism later. - Archduk3 22:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I am criticizing the article for its content, not its author. As I explained above, I find that it is well written and organized, but that it is more of an episode summary, than about the ship. I would make it different by specifically taking out all the sections in "The Spirits for Good Fortune" and summarizing and condensing them into one neat section. Admittedly, this would make the article very short, but the USS Equinox was only in one Voyager episode so that's about how much someone is going to get out of this. I can see how this might be misunderstood, nonetheless, I do take offense in your suggestion/implication that I am opposing this to somehow retaliate against a user, whom I dont even know - because it could not possibly be that I criticize something for its contents right? Like this was the first time I opposed an article nomination for too lengthy and irrelevant content therein. – Distantlycharmed 22:42, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I tell you what, if it makes you feel better, I can withdraw my objection to this article, even though I do stand by it in principle and for the reasons mentioned above (it shouldnt be FA if not edited for content), to prove that i dont have a dog in this fight and didnt do to this to get back at someone. I am seriously tired of these quibbles on MA and have no interest in engaging in another set of lengthy bickering and animosity exchange with strangers over some some sci fi article. – Distantlycharmed 23:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason for your objection to be withdrawn; and for the record, it wasn't my intention to either suggest or imply that your objection was a retaliation, just that it may be seen as such by other users unless elaborated on. I would rather get out in front of any future quibbling if I can, because I'm just as tired of this as I'm sure you are. This was suppose to be fun, right? - Archduk3 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Support:Especially for "The Ship of the Week" argument and while I see some merit in DC's reasoning, it IS what happened to the "Equinox". It is the nature of an encyclopedic approach to have some duplication of info from different points of view.--Sennim 08:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- DC - Having to retell parts of the episodes was an unfortunate necessity in my view. Like Sennim said, sometimes encyclopedia's do have duplication, it can't be avoided. We can't assume that everyone who will read that article has recently (if at all) seen VOY: "Equinox" and VOY: "Equinox, Part II", and I don't think people will want to have to switch back and forth between the articles to fill in gaps of missing information when they are perfectly appropriate (and necessary) in the ship article. The information presented is relevant to the ship and I think the support of this nomination from four other people reflects this thinking as well. --Nero210 00:18, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: While I do think some of the article is written from the ship's POV, I also feel the page could be more relevant to the ship. For example, a statement from the "Early history" section claims, "Ransom lost 39 crew members..." Why not rewrite this as something like, "39 of the ship's crew members were lost"? That's just one example, but I certainly don't believe it's the only one that could be more ship-oriented. --Defiant 08:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, for the reasons stated. Talk:USS Equinox shows that exactly this (episode summary instead of anything else) has been a valid complaint even years ago, leading to a PNA tag and eventually FA removal. If content duplication is an "unfortunate necessity" (because otherwise, the article would be nearly empty), it might just mean that this topic doesn't lend itself to being FA material. -- Cid Highwind 10:19, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Info from plaque
The List of Dedication Plaques has some info on this ship that's not on this page. like where it was built. perhaps someone can add it, I'm really tired at the moment :) --Dalen 17:39, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
This entry *really* about the Equinox?
This rather lengthy entry seems to more of an episode synopsis than about the ship itself. I think this entry needs to be edited down dramatically. Move the majority of the contents to the episodes Equinox I & II. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- I think it is excessively long and detailed as well. I do not have the skill to do anyhting about it though. Generalleoff 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I added a PNA message, because I just thought the same thing while doing some copyedit. This is a featured article at the moment, so this content should probably be moved somewhere else, then that status be removed. -- Cid Highwind 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just edited the article to focus more on the USS Equinox. If nothing else, it's a start. – AJHayson 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In the Voyager Conspiracy, Seven mentions that the Caretaker kidnapped several ships including a Galor Class Warship, which he sent back to the Alpha Quadrant. Its logical to assume that Voyager and the Val Jean arrived after the Equinox so why wasn't it sent back like the others. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- We can't really speculate, but there is precedent for ships not being returned - the maquis bomb, for instance. --AnonyQ 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Janeway clearly states the maximum warp is 8. I'm changing this, don't change it back (18.104.22.168 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC))
PNA/FA for over a year?
Either we should remove the PNA message, or remove this as a featured article. So, in the opinion of other users, has the PNA been addressed? The issue was that the article was too much an episode summary. It looks okay to me now, as the status of the ship was significant in the two episodes. I'm not sure it should be featured, but that's a discussion for if it is listed. So let's get some action here.
Note: I'm aware the FA tag hasn't been on the article for a lot of that time, but both tags have been on the article still for many months.– Cleanse 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming response I just removed the PNA. But if anyone thinks the article is not up to scratch, nominate it for FA removal.– Cleanse 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Where Does this Info Come From?
Initially, the use of the lifeforms was done only as a last resort – in late 2373, the Equinox became trapped in a nova wash, and after days of futile maneuvering, another lifeform was summoned to extricate the ship from its entrapment. Eventually, however, the use of the lifeforms became more and more commonplace.
This information is included in the article, but I don't recall it being given in VOY: "Equinox" or VOY: "Equinox, Part II", or any other episode for that matter. Does anyone know where it comes from? --22.214.171.124 06:03, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Since nobody can answer my question and I can't find a cannon source for that note, I've deleted it. The line is still hear for records. --126.96.36.199 08:32, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
I have re-written this article extensively and believe that it is once again up to potential "Featured Article" status. I'd like to get some opinions on whether or not this is true. --Nero210 04:15, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
- As it is, I think it's alright - not really anything special. I would, however, like to know more about the ship's appearance in "The Voyager Conspiracy". --Defiant 14:55, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't in the episode, it was just seen on a status display for about half a second (the type of thing that you have to freeze-frame to see). --Nero210 19:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Then tell us something about that in the article! :) -- sulfur 19:12, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Is it really necessary? Like I said it was only on an insignificant display for about half a second - and if it is necessary how and where would I put it? Background notes? --Nero210 19:15, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
- That works. But please avoid use of the conditional (using phrases like "X would appear", "X would later meet", etc). That's just poor English, and we're trying to avoid that kind of language whenever possible. -- sulfur 19:27, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Understood :). --Nero210 19:28, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Anymore feedback on this article? What's good, whats bad, etc.? --Nero210 06:09, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- According to this, all the headings need to be changed to less capitalization. --Defiant 09:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Done. Can't say I like how that looks, but if its the policy then screw it. Anything else that can be done? --Nero210 16:56, June 27, 2010 (UTC)