Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article assessment/1980s comedy films/Monty Python's Life of Brian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: Monty Python's Life of Brian

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: 6
Good coverage of the impact of the film, but it could do with more filming details; poor referencing
  • Writing style: 8
Some informal language, but generally of a high quality
  • Structure: 7
The lead is too short and needs to better summarise the film, but the structure is good
  • Aesthetics: 8
A screencap would greatly improve the article
  • Overall: 7

A good article in many respects, but does not go into enough detail about the filming and release (location, takings etc.) and needs better referencing. violet/riga (t) 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DMurphy

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality: 6
Sketchy referencing with no standard format. Good analysis but the synopsis needs an expansion. Too much about the impact of the film and too little about the film itself.
  • Writing style: 5
Far too many parentheticals; the lead seems very awkwardly written. Good vocabulary but far too unencyclopaedic; if the parentheticals were removed, the article would be about half as long.
  • Structure: 6
Needs a longer lead; the section on Analysis falls the way of covering the Controversy of the film a little too much; the Blasphemy Allegations section should be renamed Controversy.
  • Aesthetics: 8

I agree with violet here, a shot from the film would be beneficial.

  • Overall: 6

Needs a re-write desperately before anything else is added, then the holes in the article can be addressed. -DMurphy 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by [name]

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