(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
This article isn't always clear or concise. Just from the lead "The capital, Amman, is Jordan's most populous city as well as the country's economic and cultural centre" and "What is now Jordan has been inhabited by humans since the Paleolithic period". Sorry to fail this.
Pass
(b) (MoS)
The lead is cluttered with citations, which should be moved to the main body of the article if possible. The layout of the article is good though, except that it mentions in the lead about medical tourism and well developed health sector and their no subsections for these. It also appears to be free of weasel words.
I translated the titles in Arabic and added a {{subscription required}} tag. Furthermore I repaired 1 and tagged 2 external links using Checklinks. Other than that no problems were present.
Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
All sources appear to be reliable.
Pass
(c) (original research)
It appears to be all cited.
Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
It passed Earwig's Copyvio Detector as provided, but could go through rewrites to appear less like these texts.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The concern from 1(b) applies here too.
Pass
(b) (focused)
The article is focused.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
All viewpoints are presented neutrally.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
A look at the article history shows some reversions, but not an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
A possible problem here. Please look in the discussion section for more information.Update: Solved.
To be concise doesn't mean to remove important details like the status of Amman/inhabitance date.
The picture of King Abdullah has an ORTS ticket..
Perhaps @Chipmunkdavis: would be willing to give a second opinion as he had reviewed the article previously. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait and listen to what s/he says first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given my previous review of this article and subsequent increased involvement on it, I do not want to make a final call on this GAN and thus do not want to be the official second reviewer, although I believe Emir is free to withdraw the request for a second review if they wish to. I am however happy to comment on the issues raised:
1a) The first example of wording I don't see an issue with, the second I agree is clunky, but not imperfect. A better elaboration on this would be appreciated, especially given this has been copyedited by multiple people in recent months. There's of course always room for improvement, which your explanations or suggestions would help with whatever the outcome of this GAN.
1b) I agree that the lead is very cluttered with cites; I noted a similar situation in my GAN. However, in the intervening time, the article has been edited such that majority of the cites in the lead already occur in the body, and could if you feel it important, simply be removed from the article with no other actions needed. I'm sure Makeandtoss would be able to look over the remaining few in a matter of minutes, and should be offered the chance to do so if this is all that holds back the article.
1b/3a) Broadness is not determined by subsections, but by content. Country articles have even been promoted to FA with no subsections. At any rate, there is in this case both a Tourism subsection and a Health & Education subsection, with medical tourism and health covered, so I do not think this is a coverage issue. Anyway, if you wish, subsections can be added, although personally I would disagree with this as I feel the article has too many subsections already.
6a) Clarification would be good here as to the issues identified with the image, as it has an OTRS tag. At any rate, an issue with a single image is not a reason to immediately fail the article, as editors should be given a chance to replace it, or just remove it if there's no appropriate replacement.
In summary, from my reading of your issues Emir, the only one that may take substantial time to solve is prose. GAN allows reviews to be put on hold for an agreed amount of time, a week by default, so if you think Makeandtoss can fix the issues within a week, I would suggest putting the GAN on hold and providing a fuller listing of your issues with the article for them to work over. If you think they could not do it in a week, or if after a week you feel the issues have not been fixed, then when failing I would also suggest adding a comprehensive explanation to base future work off. Best, CMD (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As CMD notes, it is typical—indeed expected—that if the issues raised in the initial review could reasonably be fixed in a week's time, that the article is put on hold. After that week, it is up to the reviewer, but if good progress is being made, further time is often allowed. This article does not seem, based on what's written here, to meet the conditions given in the GA criteria for an immediate failure. As the criteria page says, In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed.BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have put this article on hold as the problems are minor. Furthermore I have mentioned the image concern at Commons, and am waiting to hear their reply. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the density of citations in the lead is now suitable ? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it is suitable and looks much better now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Update. I have listed the article as good as I think sufficient improvements have been made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Pass
This image isn't avaible for use as the source tag is incorrect and non-free. As per Flickr This issue has also been brought up at Commons.