Desperate Housewives (season 2) was nominated as a good article in the Media and drama category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.
I feel that the UK airdates and ratings are trivial facts that do not improve the article. If anything, I feel as if it clutters the page. When it comes down to it, the American ratings are what matters for television series in the United States. The ratings for the United Kingdom aren't nearly as important. And they don't have sources, which is a problem. But sources or not, I think the information should be removed from the article. The introduction includes the dates for the premiere and finale in the UK, which is sufficient. I don't think we need each individual airdate. Thoughts? Akcvtt (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, but the ratings have been split into a new ratings table? This is SO unnecessary. First off, the table is not complete. It's just been sitting there. Secondly, the only ratings information for season two episodes that we have available are the viewer numbers. I haven't been able to find information shares, rankings, etc. If that information is available somewhere, then this new table is fine. But someone needs to find it. I can see that whoever made this change wanted the article to be as parallel to the other seasons' articles as possible. That's not a valid reason for doing that. We have to go with the information we have, not what other articles are doing. I strongly think that this should be reverted and the viewer numbers should go in the episode charts. Please discuss. Akcvtt (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My complaint was that you were omitting details leading to confusion, and your solution was to remove more detail, if I am understanding what you did.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I am just saying that details about airings of clip shows is far less important than details about Emmys, Golden Globes and Nielsen ratings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason not to try to format the LEAD in the preferred manner. It is too bunched up in two paragraphs when you have similar content to that expressed in four paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Just dropping a note - Fringe (season 2) had four paragraphs when it achieved GA status. I have no expectations (at least now) for it to ever become a FA. I agree with Tony that this lead should be expanded. Currently your first paragraph is so big, it detracts from its readability. Ruby2010/2013 21:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"The season sees the promotion" needs to agree in tense with the rest of the section which is written in the past tense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
gardener, CHARACTER NAME, played by ACTOR NAME, and restructure sentence not to be runon after the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that I see the also starring section, I am not sure how to present the gardener in the first paragraph without confusion. Is that why you did not name him?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done I wrote the section this way, in order to present the gardener in the second subsection. In the first subsection, it is only a mention of him, due to my wanting only to present the character of Gabrielle Solis. I suggest it is better we leave it as it is. What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Almost every review for the season was critical of the development. However, there were many awards, but that doesn't change the negative feedback in the "Critical response" subsection, which refers only to the reviews. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Wait a second. You use the GG and SAG for the 2005 calendar year and you now point to the top ten lists for 2006. Isn't this the set of top ten lists that goes along with the GG and SAG ceremonies that you have already included in the article. It has at least 3 top 10 lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: "Best of 2006" is what should be used, because "Best of 2005" is for season one. Top ten lists go by the second part of the TV-season. ie. Grey's Anatomy#Critics' top ten lists's third season (2006-07) would refer to top ten lists for "Best of 2007". Hope this helps, TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It does not make sense to only present GG and SAG for the 2005 calendar year and the top ten for 2006. I argue that both years should be mentioned for GG, SAG and top 10 lists. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument against this common sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not necessarily an argument. House, M.D., a FA, only uses the second half of the year. As does Grey's Anatomy, a GA. It seems to be a standardized use. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The fifth episode of the season received a nomination at the 2006 Art Directors Guild, whereas the Casting Society of America nominated Junie Lowry-Johnson and Scott Genkinger for Best Comedy Episodic Casting, following their being awarded at the previous year's ceremony.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
In general, this section does well with 2005-06 awards but on calendar year awards, especially the GG and SAG it only includes the first of the two relevant calendar years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
E.g., GG and SAG awards are not an a TV season schedule. The GG and SAG are almost on a calendar year cycle (probably a November to November) cycle. Since most shows are on hiatus in December it is loosely regarded as a calendar year cycle. Thus, the Jan-May episodes were part of the awards recognizing the 2006 calendar year that you are omitting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you should have a separate paragraph for the Emmys. Then since both the SAG and GGs are calendar year based, give them a separate paragraph where you explain this issue. Then put the rest of the awards and noms in another paragraph or two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, please link the major awards that have their own pages at least once in the article (most likely in this section).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"Although the episode attracted less viewers than CSI, it outperformed both Lost and Grey's Anatomy, one of the most successful series of the season." seems ungrammatical because you have a both this and that, followed by one of. I am not sure how important this sentence is. It needs to be restructured if it is to be kept.
The references need to be merged to cut down the length of the footnote section. I.E., the sentence that says "The ninth and tenth episodes ranked first in weekly viewership" should point to the same number reference that the table cites for the 9th and 10th week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have notified the nominator on his talk page on the 14th and today that I am close to failing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)