Talk:New Zealand nationality law/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 05:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Horserice, I'll take up the review for this nomination and present it to you in some time. I hope my feedback will be useful to you and that I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Horserice, I've completed the review and the article pretty much fulfills the good article criteria. I am going to promote it but do note that there are a few minor issues that need to be looked into, which I have listed in the comments below. Good work on the article in general! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate: Thanks for taking the time to review! I've addressed the issues you brought up point by point below. Horserice (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Foreign nationals who were not British subjects had limited property rights and could not own land. They successfully lobbied the government for the ability to naturalise in 1844." This isn't verifiable from its in-line citation. McMillan & Hood 2016 (p. 4.) appears to be the citation that should be used for it. The line should also specify that it was French and German immigrants who lobbied the government and were successful in getting citizenship.

  Added appropriate citation.

• "The head tax was also increased to £100 that year, ... This should specify the year as 1896 for the sake of clarity, since the preceding line mentions both 1888 and 1896.

  Done.

• "New Zealand adopted most of the common code in 1923, except for the provisions on imperial naturalisation, which it later enacted in 1928. This line can sound confusing, since the details of the common code is not elaborated on in the article and since the previous line discusses imperial naturalisation in the context of authorisation. I would suggest re-phrasing the line a bit and including the numbered parts adopted in 1923 and in 1928.

  I just changed that to refer to "this law". I think that should work?

• The italics in the article are not necessary.

  Removed italics.

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension is generally good.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear, concise and understandable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article compliant with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is largely verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all material in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive enough.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has an adequately broad coverage of the topic's major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused without significant unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing content disputes or edit warring present.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyright issues found.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and captions are good.	Pass