Wikipedia:Article assessment/1980s comedy films/Crocodile Dundee

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

Article: Crocodile Dundee

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

 * Coverage and factuality: 6
 * No decent referencing other than IMDb; short plot details and lacking other details


 * Writing style: 7
 * Generally acceptable


 * Structure: 8
 * Fine for the content


 * Aesthetics: 7
 * A screencap would help, but it's quite good already


 * Overall: 7

Gives the basic information about the film but doesn't go in depth anywhere. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Review by Enzo Aquarius

 * Coverage and factuality: 4
 * The introduction has more coverage than the summary. The actual 'plot' per se is not mentioned at all with a minor introduction of the character only. Thus, it needs much more plot information. It additionally needs more references, with only the movie and IMDb referenced.


 * Writing style: 8
 * I do like the writing style. It doesn't seem 'matter-of-the-fact'ish and the intro kept me interested. Moving some of the intro information to trivia prevents the reader from getting bored from reading a long introduction.


 * Structure: 7
 * I like the structure, however, I personally feel there's too much information in the introduction that should be put aside in another section. Some of the information could be placed in trivia, as it was recently performed (Due to this, I have increased the score for this section). The awards section is a great addition. Needs more pictures, especially when the plot summary is increased.


 * Aesthetics: 7
 * Good aesthetics, pleasing to the eye, however sections need to be expanded to prevent the page from looking cluttered.


 * Overall: 7
 * It's a great start with a good writing style, however it needs much more information and expanded sections, especially the plot. - Enzo Aquarius 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Review by [name]

 * Coverage and factuality:
 * Writing style:
 * Structure:
 * Aesthetics:
 * Overall: