Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA2

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I do not believe this article is ready yet for GA status. I have added tags where additional citations may be necessary. Also, the lead mentions that "Citing court rulings in the United States and in Germany, critics have asserted that Roughs Tower has always remained under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom" yet no such court rulings are mentioned in the article.


 * I have edited the sentence about the court rulings. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate  19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only place where the article mentions British sovereignty over Sealand is the 1968 court ruling, which ruled that it was not under British jurisdiction. Provide a recent source that shows that the UK claims Sealand as a part of its territory. -epicAdam (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As the article is relatively short, I would recommend cleaning up and merging Legal status of Sealand into this article. Since the debate over whether this territory is actually it's own state is probably the only reason this article even exists, that information can certainly presented in the main article. Further, per WP:ENGVAR, the article needs to be consistent in its use of American vs. British grammar. For example, there are instances when both "defense" and "defence" are used, as well as "recognize" and "recognise".


 * I would suggest using British English - Sealand is located within Europe where British English is the English that is taught in school, also Sealand is only 8 miles away from the British coast. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate  19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. You can use whatever you like. Just make it consistent. -epicAdam (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please renominate when the above revisions have been made! Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)