Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 New Zealand Music Awards/archive1

2010 New Zealand Music Awards
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first WP article created on a specific year of the NZMAs. I based the format on that of 19th Golden Melody Awards. In an attempt to push the article up to FL, I would appreciate any constructive criticism that can be given. One thing I would particularly like feedback on is the structure of the headings, and whether there is a better way to do this.

Thanks in advance, Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, any do you think an infobox should be created, like the ones for the Grammys or the Academy Awards? Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:
 * General points
 * Re infoboxes, there is no WP requirement to use them. Most featured music awards listings have them, a few don't. I personally don't like them, but it may be wise to be guided by the precedents.
 * Almost all the featured music awards lists use a formal tabular structure. Is there a reason why you have chosen to present the list in the non-tabular format? Why do you think this preferable?
 * Prose
 * First sentence seems awkwardly repetitive and dubiously grammatical: "The 2010 New Zealand Music Awards was the 45th holding of the annual New Zealand Music Awards, awarded to..." etc. Something along the lines of "The 2010 New Zealand Music Awards was the 45th holding of the annual ceremony featuring awards to..." etc.
 * It would be better to keep your prose chronological. Thus, after the first sentence, "Finalists for the three technical awards were announced on 16 August 2010 with winners announced on 1 September, the date on which finalists for 16 out of 21 "non-technical" categories were revealed."
 * Should there not be some explanation as to why no finalists were announced in five categories?
 * I don't think the lead should include a list of sponsors. List them by all means, if you wish, at the end of the main lists, but highlighting them in the lead makes the article look like advertising material.
 * Can you use a more elegant phrase than "finalist-less", which sounds (and is) a made-up word?

Nothing else, really. If you want to raise any of these points with me, or want me to look again, please leave a message on my talk page as I am not able to watch peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)