Talk:Irish nationality law/GA1

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

Reviewer: Morogris (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

GA assessment
Article has met GA requires. Congratulations!

Review
Will review. Stay tuned! Morogris ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Overall a great article! Sources are strong and content is thorough. Below are a few points that need action. I'll be placing the article on hold. Cheers, Morogris ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through it, I've went ahead and addressed all your points and that should take care of it. Let me know if you find anything else. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Intro

 * - No mention of EFTA in the body paragraphs. Per WP:LEADCITE, this should be mentioned and cited elsewhere.
 * Added elaboration.


 * - Ditto
 * Added mention in body.

Terminology

 * - I would advise to remove "now" per MOS:DATED. The start of the sentence helps understand the when.
 * Done.

Partition and lingering nationality status

 * - Please link Oireachtas since it is the first mention of it in the body.
 * Done.

Changing relationship between Britain and the Commonwealth

 * - I read up to here and a question came up. Why are there mentions of "United Kingdom" and then "UK" later? I'm not sure if this is a writing rule of some sort, but I would advise consistency. If you can change all "United Kingdom" to "UK" or vice versa for the entire article, that would greatly appreciated.
 * I don't think there's specific guidance in MOS:ACRO that prefers one way or the other? For the UK, it just says "the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out." But it doesn't provide guidance on being consistent throughout. I typically just switch between writing "United Kingdom" and "UK" just to vary the wording a bit.


 * - Citizen by investment should be linked, and the redirect takes us to Immigrant investor programs.
 * Done.


 * - Should the case be redlinked? The other case you mentioned later was, hence why I asked.
 * I typically never add red links since it requires a bit of guesswork on whether it is plausible an article on that topic could be sustained (WP:REDDEAL). I could see this case being significant enough for that, but would almost always err on the side of not adding them.


 * - Does the source define what "long-term" is?
 * I was avoiding being repetitive since the residence requirement is a bit verbose but I've changed all the references to this to include those qualifications.

Loss and resumption

 * - Is "liable" the right word here? Liable is defined as responsible by law; legally answerable. I think as simple as saying "may be stripped of their citizenship" can suffice. I'll leave it up to you.
 * Fixed.

Honorary citizenship

 * - Very interesting fact. Does the source state what law it was? If so, we should link that in the article for inquisitive readers.
 * Added elaboration.