Talk:New Zealand nationality law/GA1

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

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)
 * , 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)
 * 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
 Comprehension: The comprehension is generally good.

Verifiability: The article is largely verifiable.

Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive enough.

Neutrality: The article is neutral.

Stability: The article is stable. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.

