Talk:Desperate Housewives season 2

UK airdates and ratings

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)

Unnecessary changes to ratings chart

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Desperate Housewives (season 2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will review this in the next day or two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

• This LEAD omits some very important content about the show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The season received mainly negative reviews" is terribly misleading. DH won both Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy and Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series for the 2005 calendar year, which included many of the episodes from this season. You even say "each of the four main actresses received a nomination for their portrayals of the protagonists" at the 63rd GG. Huffman won Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series (2005). Also look at 64th GG and 13th SAG for noms and awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done No longer confusing. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (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)

• • The show finished 4th in the Neilson ratings and was part of a 2005–06 Sunday night lineup with #5 Grey's Anatomy and #19 Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That refers to Ratings, I was talking about reviews, but now it's no longer confusing, as I edited the sentence.

More content omission?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• The LEAD is suppose to be a summary of the main body. Please make sure that a summary of each section is in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Production  Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Cast  Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reception  Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Home video release  Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Including the Clip shows in this great a detail and omitting the above content is WP:UNDUE.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

They are present in other GA Leads like the one for Grey's Anatomy (season 2). Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:17, 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)

Oh, I see. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Should there be a paragraph that summarizes the content of the 24 short episode paragraphs? The first two GAs I looked at seemed to have this type of content in the WP:LEAD: 2nd paragraph of Grey's Anatomy (season 2) and 2nd paragraph of Fringe (season 2). Also 2nd paragraph of Sanctuary (season 2) solely summarizes the season. I think this article should be rearranged so that the LEAD has a paragraph summarizing the episodes. Not sure why Parks and Recreation (season 2) does not have such a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel you can structure this lead like the 4-paragraph leads in the examples above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. Grey's Anatomy (season 2) and Fringe (season 2) had their leads restructured, in order to get the article nominated for FA. They only had two paragraphs (just like the one in this article, as I wrote it like the one for Grey's Anatomy (season 2) ), when they were promoted to GA (see Grey's Anatomy (season 1) and Grey's Anatomy (season 4)) Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:31, 26 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. Ruby 2010/2013 21:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Production

• "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)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• What is "Next"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You link it a few times later, but should link its first occurrence instead.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Next is the second season premiere of the show. I added a wikilink to its article, so it so no loger confusing. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is now WP:OVERLINKed (four times in the text and once in the table). Reduce to at most twice in the text and once in the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Cast

• "cope with the reveal of his wife's affair with their gardener," reveal should be revelation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:16, 20 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)

That is fine, but in the second section you must make sure it is clear who the gardener is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Critical response

• For a show that won Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series and Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy for the 2005 part of the season and was nominated in both categories for the 2006 portion of the season, the critical commentary that you present describes a fairly haphazard show. If the show slipped from being the best comedy show on television to being one of the top five, I would still expect a more positive presentation for the set of critical commentary. I think what you need to do is set the table by saying the show won numerous awards in its first season and slipped a bit relative to that performance. The reader might not mean how successful the show was during its sophomore slump otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 19 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)

• Was the show on any top 10 lists for the second season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done As the series was not in any top 10 lists. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe it was GG- and SAG-nominated as one of the best 5 comedies and not on any top 10 lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

[1] Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to explain this point with this link in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 27 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)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Calandar_year_awards_in_season_articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

• "the series was name the Best Musical or Comedy Series" tense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 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)
  • What Art Directors Guild award?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• • whereas is an odd choice as a conjunction here and elsewhere in this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 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)

Not sure I don't know what you mean. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:03, 25 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)

Now I understand. Thank you, Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the awards are strictly calendar-based for eligibility. Just called both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You must explain to the reader that which year each calendar year based award covers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 11 July 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)

Ratings

• Did any episodes finish first for the week?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any commentary on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can you name and link these two episodes in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Although its ratings fell a little, you should note that it defended its fourth place finish from the year before.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 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.

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems unchanged in this regard and remains ungrammatical sounding to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should say that ABC had 3 top 20 shows on the Sunday Night lineup with it nestled between #19 and #5 shows.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Home vieo release

• The box set is currently needs to be preceded by {{asof}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am going ot place this on hold.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I will start addressing the issues right away. Thank you so much for reviewing! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't finish checking everything, but you seem to be a hostile editor doing almost the opposite of every instruction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly am not a hostile editor. I apologize if I made it seem that way. I'll start addressing the other issues. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the main discussant that he should attempt to resume making progress on this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
    • Due to lack of progress after several reminders I am failing this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Desperate Housewives (season 2). 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/20141011060406/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516042311/http://www.abcmedianet.com:80/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052405_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052405_04
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601190247/http://abcmedianet.com:80/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092705_03 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092705_03
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528005920/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_06

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)