Wikipedia:Peer review/Australian Film Institute Award for Best Film/archive1

Australian Film Institute Award for Best Film
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a lot of changes to it and I would like to know what else I need to add. Thank you in advance, DonEd (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: thanks for your work on this article - here are some suggestions for improvement, assuming you will eventually want to try this at WP:FLC.
 * The disambig links finder in the Toolbox (upper right corner of this peer review page) finds several disambiguation links that will need to be fixed.
 * The external links tool finds one external link that is problematic and also needs to be fixed.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film is a FL and seems like it would be a useful model.
 * I see the model article uses color, but also specifies in the intro that bold is used and that the first listing each year is the winner. This uses color and bold to indicate winners - I would make sure this is consistent with WP:ACCESS Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information.
 * I am also not sure the article's use of bold text follows WP:ITALIC, although it does follow the model FL
 * I really don't understand this sentence: The nominees from 1958 to 1976 are not available.[3] Does this mean they did not announce the nominees then, only the winners? Or does it mean that the source cited does not have the nominees in it? I assume if they were publicized at the time, then old newspapers or magazines would list the nominees, for example (and libraries generally have these).
 * I also do not understand why two winners are listed for the first two years, but only one winner since then - need to make this clearer
 * The article does not use links consistently - in the first part everything is linked even if it is a red link. However, in more recent years, there are several unlinked names.
 * List articles do not start with "This is a list of..." or "This page lists..."
 * The model article puts all the entries into one table, and does not break them up by decades
 * Article uses "it's" where "its" is meant
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)