Wikipedia:Article assessment/1980s comedy films/Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Assessment Article assessment
1980s comedy films
Assessment completed
6 March 2006
12 March 2006
Assessments
A Fish Called Wanda

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
Back to the Future Good article
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Brazil (film)
Coming to America
Crocodile Dundee
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Ghostbusters
Heathers
Honey, I Shrunk the Kids Poor article
Little Shop of Horrors (1986 film)
Monty Python's Life of Brian
The Naked Gun
The Princess Bride (film)
A Room with a View (film) Poor article
Spaceballs
This Is Spinal Tap Good article
Three Men and a Baby
Time Bandits
Twins (film)
UHF (film)

Assessment of an article under the topic 1980s comedy films.


Article: Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Details of the assessment method can be found at the main page. Feel free to add comments when you assess an article, or use the talk page for discussion.

Review by violet/riga

edit
  • Coverage and factuality: 4
Doesn't establish notability or say anything about the film other than the plot; no referencing
  • Writing style: 5
Too much review-style writing ("delivers a memorable performance...") and a horribly large bulletpoint trivia section.
  • Structure: 6
A very poor lead, but the sections are appropriate.
  • Aesthetics: 6
Let down by the poor structure, and the article could do with one more screencap.
  • Overall: 4

The article is more IMDb than Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jared

edit
  • Coverage and factuality: 7
Plot included, but too much writing and detail. Seemed pretty factual to me. No describing paragraph on the top.
  • Writing style: 4.5
Too much writing about the plot, and not enough information about other things related to the movie. Too much trivial information: an eyesore. All of the bullets are bothersome to look at. Decent writing.
  • Structure: 6.5
Too many bullets; headings offer a good flow; Infobox at top and refs/see alsos on bottom: general wikification.
  • Aesthetics: 5
Not very appealing to look at, but has plenty of factual information and nevertheless a good source for the movie.
  • Overall: 6
The structure and first-impression of the article ruins it. Good facts, though. --Jared [T]/[+] 01:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by [name]

edit
  • Coverage and factuality:
  • Writing style:
  • Structure:
  • Aesthetics:
  • Overall:

im pretty sure this is the BEST movie i've ever seen!!