Talk:Pilot (Desperate Housewives)

Pilot (Desperate Housewives) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 3, 2008	Articles for deletion	No consensus
November 20, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
February 14, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 9, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Television: Desperate Housewives / Episode coverage

	Television portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Desperate Housewives task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Untitled

Ian Hainsworth in this episode???

Fair use rationale for Image:Desp 101.jpg

Image:Desp 101.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is relatively well-written and formatted. What information it does contain is correct and neutral. However, I would re-iterate the earlier critique which mentioned the overlinking of actresses' names. One way to avoid this might be to have some sort of "higher level" summary of the plot in the lead, and that section itself. So instead of listing all their affairs, say something like: "As the housewives come to terms with the suicide of Alice, an outwardly successful neighbour, their own private lives are explored in greater detail, for example, many are unfaithful or unhappy in their marriages."

While what is here is acceptable, the article relies on monotonous factoids to fill it out, such as the long boring list of previous films the sets had been used in. Besides this, there is little information about the production.

Secondly, the key part of this episode is the reception. It was made as a pilot to judge reaction to the concept. The producers' expectations before the broadcast and the critical and viewing reception need to be given in greater length. Finally, how did they decide to continue the series? Related point :There are far too many Desperate Housewives articles. Not every character and episode is notable. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found your comments insightful and helpful and they drew attention to issues in the article I didn't even consider. I believe I fixed the overlinking, as I've removed specific character affairs from the lead; the main actors' names are only linked in the plot summary section. After some consideration, I agree with your stance on the information regarding the sets. The list in which productions they have appeared in is tedious, extraneous, and detracts from the article as a whole. It is also covered in great detail in both the Colonial Street and Wisteria Lane articles. I've condensed the information regarding the sets in this article to a few sentences and added much more interesting and relevant commentary from the set designer. I have also expanded the critical reception section and included more information about how ABC executives handled the pilot as well as more casting details. One question I have is what you meant by "how did they decided to continue the series?" I looked at other articles about television pilots with at least a good-article status to see if I could see what you meant and I couldn't. I would love to make the change and add more necessary information, but I'm unclear as to what you meant. Thanks for the help! Akcvtt (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilot (Desperate Housewives)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 comment! 16:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review soon. Ruby2010 comment! 16:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

There is one dab link
- Fixed. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is a deadlink
- Replaced. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC)." It premiered on the network, not the company. Maybe change to "on the ABC network (or something similar)
- Done. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Actors originally considered for the role include Courteney Cox,[19] Calista Flockhart,[19][20] Heather Locklear,[19] Julia Louis-Dreyfus,[4], Mary-Louise Parker,[19][21] and Sela Ward.[22] Julia Louis-Dreyfus also expressed interest in the role, but network executives felt she was not right for the part.[4]" You mention Julia Louis-Dreyfus twice
- Fixed. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure sentences with direct quotes have citations directly after the period (mostly needed in reception section)
- Done. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the pilot was good, but were there any notable negative reviews?
- While writing the section and after another internet search just now, there aren't any notable negative reviews. It appears the pilot received universal acclaim. There are a few negative reviews that refer to the entire first season as a whole, but they do not specifically mention the pilot. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Websites with no offline printings, like TV Squad, The Futon Critic, and The A.V. Club, are not italicized
- Done. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 48 needs an access date
- Done. Akcvtt (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it was a well-written and interesting article. Just make the changes I suggested above, and it will be good to go. I'll place the review on hold for seven days in the meantime. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes looks great, but there is still the remaining deadlink. Use the external links tool if you are unsure which ref the link corresponds to. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 04:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. I replaced the link with a different article. Akcvtt (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now looks GA-worthy, so I'll pass it. Very nice work! Ruby2010 comment! 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pilot (Desperate Housewives). 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:

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) 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]