Big praise is weaker than plain facts
People often write nominations as if they are making a speech. That usually hides the detail that matters. A line about someone being “amazing” or “the best in the area” tells a judge very little. A better nomination names the work, the place, and the effect on other people. If a neighbour drives an elderly resident to clinic appointments every Tuesday, say that. If a teacher stays after school to help learners with reading, say which grade group and how often that support happens.
Honest detail makes the nomination easier to assess. It also protects the person being nominated, because it keeps the story close to what can be checked. Exaggeration often creates gaps, and those gaps are where a nomination starts to look weak.
- Say what the person did, not only what people felt about it.
- Include dates, routines, places or the setting where it happened.
- Use names for projects, schools, clinics, churches or community groups where relevant.
A nomination should read like a short witness account
Think of the nomination as a clear account from someone who saw the help happen. The strongest entries usually explain who the nominee is, what they do, who benefits, and why the work matters in the community. If the story is about a volunteer in Braamfontein who helps with meal parcels, the nomination should show how the support is organised and how long it has been going. If it is about a first responder, the entry should stay with the facts of the service and not drift into praise that cannot be supported.
That kind of writing gives the review process something solid to work with. It also becomes easier for the public to follow when nominations open across South Africa, from Johannesburg and Cape Town to Durban, Gqeberha and Polokwane.
- Keep one main story in focus.
- Describe the person’s role in ordinary language.
- Leave out claims that sound impressive but have no proof.
Evidence should support the story, not replace it
Useful evidence can include photographs, letters of support, screenshots, programme notes, school communication, or a written account from someone who has seen the work first hand. Evidence is strongest when it matches the story in the nomination form. A picture of a clean community garden helps only if the nomination explains who planted it and who maintains it. A message of thanks is useful too, but it should sit beside a fuller account rather than stand on its own.
Not every nomination needs a thick file. What matters is relevance. Judges need to see that the story is real, specific and grounded. A long list of attachments with no explanation can be less helpful than a few good pieces of supporting detail.
- Use evidence that connects directly to the nomination.
- Label files or notes so they are easy to follow.
- Only include sensitive material when it is truly needed.
Consent matters before a name is submitted
A nomination is not just a tribute, it is also a public act. The nominee should know they are being entered and should agree to it. That is important where the story includes personal history, family matters, health information or work with vulnerable people. Without consent, even a generous nomination can cause discomfort.
Consent also helps keep the process fair. It gives the nominee a chance to understand what details are being shared and what may be reviewed. For the team in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, this is a basic part of handling nominations responsibly, especially when people from different provinces use the same public process.
- Speak to the nominee before you submit their name.
- Explain what details may be read by judges.
- Do not add private information that is not needed for the story.
Privacy is part of a careful nomination
Privacy is not a technical extra. It is part of good judgement. A strong nomination gives enough detail to be meaningful, while still protecting personal information. That means leaving out identity numbers, private medical records, home addresses and anything that could put the nominee or their family at risk. If a story involves a child, a patient, a survivor of abuse or a person in a sensitive situation, the wording should be even more careful.
Public questions about nominations often focus on this point, and rightly so. The safest approach is to share only what is needed for eligibility, judging and consent. A nomination can be honest without being exposed. It can be specific without being intrusive.
- Share the minimum detail needed for review.
- Avoid naming children unless it is necessary and appropriate.
- Use general wording for sensitive situations where exact details are not needed.
Judging works best when the criteria stay plain
Judging should not depend on dramatic language. It should rely on clear points such as the nature of the contribution, the consistency of the help, the reach of the benefit, and the strength of the evidence. A person who shows up regularly for a community kitchen may be a stronger nomination than someone with a flashy story and little proof. The most persuasive nominations explain routine effort, not only one memorable moment.
This is where the review process matters. A clear nomination helps the judging process coordinator and the wider team compare entries fairly, whether they are looking at Gauteng Nominations, Western Cape Nominations or entries from Limpopo and the Eastern Cape.
- Show steady help, not only a single event.
- Explain who benefits and how often.
- Keep the wording direct enough for fair comparison.
A Braamfontein example that stays honest
Picture a nomination for a community member in Braamfontein who helps a local after-school group. The useful version says they collect donated stationery, supervise homework on Wednesdays and help organise weekend food parcels for learners who need support. It may mention the area, the group and the kind of service, but it does not claim to solve every problem in the district. That smaller story is stronger because it can be understood and checked.
Honest detail also respects the nominee. It gives proper weight to the work without turning it into a grand statement that others cannot recognise. For an awards programme built around everyday South Africans, that balance matters more than flair.
- Use one clear example from real routine work.
- Keep the language modest and specific.
- Let the facts do the heavy lifting.
