Talk:Amir H. Jamal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Will211 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I plan on reviewing the article within the next seven days, so please be patient.

It is well written
the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct

and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Early Life
This section repeats the word he a lot, so maybe you can replace some of these with Jamal

He first met Julius Nyerere in 1952 at a reception hosted by the British Council in honour of the latter's return as a graduate of Edinburgh University. He was a veteran of Tanganyika's independence movement and in 1955, "helped to pay for Nyerere's visit to the United Nations" in New York City, USA.-Again, be more specific as to who "he" is. It may also be helpful to elaborate on this section, if possible.

At first, Jamal had "leanings towards Fabian Society"; but thereafter joined the Asian Association. In 1958, he was elected to the Legislative Council. In 1962, Jamal joined the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) as its first non-African member.-This section may be tough for the common reader to understand, so it would be helpful if this section could be elaborated.

Career
Once again, try not to use he so much.

In 1985, he was appointed as Head of the country's Permanent Mission to the United Nations Office in Geneva.-Be specific as to which country he was appointed for.

Personal Life
"person of absolute integrity.. never a Yes man"-check your grammar for this quote

For the sentence "Godfrey Mwakikagile described him as "more of a technocrat than a politician"." it would be a good idea to include a small definition of who Godfrey Mwakikagile was. Example: Tanzanian scholar Godfrey Mwakikagile described him as "more of a technocrat than a politician"."

Honors and awards
The header of this section, honors is spelled ending in ors, but in the section itself, honors is spelled honours. Make sure to use either honors or honours throughout the article.

Gallery
Elaborate on the picture descriptions, if possible.

"Inspecting a project", "With Mwalimu Nyerere (c), 1950s", and "Council of Ministers, September 1960" are not complete sentences.

Verifiable with no original research
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

it contains no original research

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

Broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

Neutral
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

Stable
it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Concerns
Concerns in this section are addressed above.

Overall
Overall, good job. I'm putting this article on hold until the above comments are resolved. If you have any questions, leave them on my talk page. I believe that once the above comments are resolved the article can be promoted to GA Status. Will211 (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

, I have two things I would like to mention. First, I don't think that image captions necessarily need to be in complete sentences. One other potential issue I would like to bring up is that of detail. The article is much shorter than most good articles. I think some expansion may be required. I'm not a particularly experienced GA reviewer, nor do I want you to see me as encroaching upon your space. Rather, these are things that I think should be brought up.Display name 99 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , I agree that captions need not be full sentences, they just need to be concise and should make sense. But the article need not be long for GA status. If it has been expanded as much as was possible, then length need not be an issue.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 14:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

, thank you for your advice. Will211 has recommended that a few portions of the article be elaborated upon, and so I think that this will help take care of some of my concerns regarding the level of detail in this article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , I am writing to remind you that it has now been close to 5 days since the original listings of concerns were made on this article. The article was put on hold. I do not know if has a time in mind for how long he is willing to continue it, but the period generally lasts about 7 days. This would mean that there are about 2 days left. In these 5 days, you have not made a single change to the article or a post on the review page. It's fine, of course, if you are busy, but you should communicate that to us or else begin making or discussing the recommended changes. Through looking at your editing history, it appears to me as though you have had one article, Inauguration of Muhammadu Buhari, failed as a GA because you did not respond to comments made by the reviewer. There could be more. It is important to make notice of what the reviewer says, respond to it on the talk page, and, when agreement is reached, work the recommendations into the article. If you are unwilling to do so, please do not needlessly use other people's time by nominating articles for good article status and subsequently failing to do anything once the reviews commence. If two days or more pass without you doing anything, Will211 might have to fail the article. It can't stay listed forever.  Please don't take what I said too harshly, I am just reminding you of the active review. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , the article has been on hold for over 8.5 days now. During that time, we have heard absolutely nothing from the nominator. No changes have been made to the article whatsoever. The normal length of time for an article to remain on hold is 7 days. It can be extended somewhat if the reviewer sees fit, but considering the fact that the nominator has made no attempt to do anything on the review, I'm not sure I see a reason to keep it open. Do you have an idea of how long you would be willing to wait? I'm pinging here hoping that I may hear something. Display name 99 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , 24 hours unless we hear something from . If we get a response, I may be willing to leave the article on hold through Sunday night. Will211 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , that seems like a good idea. I'll check back on the page every so often Display name 99 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , have you heard any response from ? Will211 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

, I have not. Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, it looks like this article will have to fail since no action has been taken on the article since the review was completed two weeks ago. Will211 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)