Talk:Kittitian and Nevisian nationality law

Quick review
Hi, I've made a few minor tweaks already, there were a few slightly more substantial things that I thought I should run by you rather than attempt to change myself, in case I've misunderstood things, or you might disagree with:
 * You're using St. Kitts consistently throughout. Our article on the country is titled Saint Kitts and Nevis (with 'Saint' written out in full). That article isn't internally consistent, but Ctrl+F 'Saint' gives 127 hits, whereas Ctrl+F 'St.' gives only 50. I'm not saying this should be changed, just wondering whether it's something you've considered.
 * I think I changed all of them to Saint (except I left the French alone as a further distinction). SusunW (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Applicants must pay the non-refundable application, documentation as required for adequate background checks, and a police certificate." Should this be "Applicants must pay the non-refundable application, and for documentation as required for adequate background checks, and a police certificate." (I'm just saying that you don't pay documentation, you pay for documentation.)
 * Changed to Applicants must pay the non-refundable application fees, provide documentation as required for adequate background checks, and obtain a police certificate. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "The French settled the borders" - does this mean the coastline? Would "The French settled the coastal regions" be clearer? When I first read it, I thought it meant 'settled' as in 'decided upon' - like, they had more people, so they decided where the borders between the English and French colonies would be.
 * Changed it to settled in the coastal regions. Does the "in" make it obvious that they were living there? SusunW (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * " which began to attract interest from others settled on St. Kitts, who began migrating to the nearby island." - two 'begans'. The first part could just be 'which attracted interest'?
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * From reading the section on British and French joint period (1625–1713), I think that after the English and French divided the island up, the English bit was called St. Kitts and the French bit was called St Christophe, is that accurate? I wonder if it would be worth adding a sentence (or perhaps just a clause) explaining that after the bit about how the divided the island. I got a bit confused at the part where it said that St. Kitts and Anguilla were taken over by the crown - I was thinking 'what did the French make of that', without realising that we were talking about just the English parts, not the French part.
 * Changed it to read calling their colonies St. Christophe and Saint Christopher (Saint Kitts), respectively. Better, or does it need to be a separate sentence? SusunW (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * James I or James VI and I - personally, I would use the latter, my impression is that most modern sources refer to him in that way. Maybe that's just me being a chippy Scot again though...
 * ✅ far be it from me to try to figure out what is proper for your side of the pond. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These are great points, and part of the reason I said it was so hard to write. Let me work on them. As for St. Kitts/Saint Kitts, when I am composing, far easier to use the abbreviation. I'm happy to change it to spelled out, but I truly felt it should be Kitts rather than Christopher because it would be more easily separated from the French colony and Google shows +/- 513,000 results for Saint Christopher, +/- 55,200,000 for St. Kitts, and +/- 207,000,000 for Saint Kitts. Thanks so much for looking at it. I truly appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh yeah, I'm definitely with you on Kitts rather than Christopher, it was just the saint/st. thing I meant. I don't have a view on which one is 'more correct', happy for you to leave it as is if you think best, just wanted to make sure it had been considered. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  13:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay,, I think I have done all of these. Thank you so much, truly appreciate it. It's such a complicated situation I am happy for other eyes to make sure it is clear (or at least not mired in muddiness). SusunW (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , all looks good to me :) Girth Summit  (blether)  14:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)