Talk:South Korean nationality law/GA1

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

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 09:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

 * [1] [2], I can't read the content, can you recite what it says there? ✅
 * The open access link here should work.
 * The lead section is to explain shortly the topic. Try to put a simplified version of the history in the lead section..., like USAMGIK taking over, the naturalization, the women discrimination, Constituent National Assembly, 1948 law and then the reforms. ✅
 * Expanded the lead to briefly explain naturalization and notable features of ROK nationality. I don't think summarizing the history section there is that useful. If you're bringing in a second reviewer anyways, then I'll wait for their input.

History

 * the traditional Joseon kingdom (...), is there a version of the Joseon kingdom that's not traditional? ✅
 * Rephrased that sentence.
 * transitionary measures, can you replace with a simpler word? ✅
 * Temporary.
 * could have it restored upon renunciation of that foreign nationality or their removal from the Japanese koseki., I believe "that" doesn't sound right because it's mostly used for pointing at something in an informal way. May you replace "that" with "their" and then remove the second "their" so it doesn't create a repetition? ✅
 * Sure.
 * nationality of male heads of household. I don't feel "male heads of household" is correct, do you think it would be better if we worded it as "household male heads"? ✅
 * If I had to choose an alternative, I would pick "male household heads". But given that "head of household" is a common term, I would stick with the current phrasing.

Acquisition and loss
(3)	Any person who was born while his lineal ascendent stayed abroad without the intention of permanently residing in any foreign country may make a declaration of his intention to renounce his Korean nationality under Article 14, only when the person falls under any of the following subparagraphs, with respect to his obligation for military service: Amended by Act No. 10275, May 4, 2010; Act No. 14183, May 29, 2016 1.	Where he has completed, or is deemed to have completed, his active military service, full-time reserve service or replacement status; 2.	Where he is enlisted in the second militia service; 3.	Where he is exempt from military service.
 * and are not permitted to renounce ROK nationality until they have completed military service., I can't find the information in the source. May you quote it? ✅
 * The law citation already points to this but here's the copy:

Rights and restrictions

 * Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Change it to North Korea to be consistent as the paragraph mentions North Koreans. If you are planning this change please change and the other thingies that mentions DPRK. But I'm not sure about ROK, so I believe we can keep South Korea like that.
 * That's the formal name of North Korea. North Korea and DPRK refer to the same thing. This request doesn't make sense.
 * I meant to refer it as North Korea because the article mentions "North Korea citizens" instead of "citizens of Democratic People's Republic of Korea", but considering the changes it doesn't matter anymore. Editoneer (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The article appears to be well-done from all the criterias, after you're done correcting the article, I'm going to put it on 2ndopinion. You can debate changes or anything, good luck. Editoneer (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressed changes. Horserice (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologise for delaying, thank you. Editoneer (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RGA, would you please explain what precisely you need a second opinion about? Thank you. (If you're satisfied with the article, you are of course welcome to pass it without any additional input.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I forgot to specify. I needed a second opinion from somebody else to check the article all over again in case there still mistakes that I'm just not seeing, I also did this progress with past articles, thank you. Editoneer (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA 2nd Opinion; the review will follow the same sections of the Article.  Citizenship might scope to include


 * statement on respect for courts and rule of law
 * statement of allegiance to the Crown and its successors
 * statement of adherence to national values
 * statement in the national language or as admitted, other languages

I pledge my loyalty to *nation* and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
 * A citizenship pledge

Final Comments

 * Reference 1 is an excellent overview of the history of Citizenship and current issues of citizenship in South Korea
 * with regard to Japanese occupation of Korea, there is a need to refer to the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and South Korea declared that the unequal treaties between Japan and Korea, especially those of 1905 and 1910, were "already null and void" Refer to:~ Hook, Glenn D. (2001). Japan's International Relations: Politics, Economics, and Security. p. 491. ISBN 9780415240970. "Article II. It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void."


 * male heads of households is common terminology for English speaking countries, in particular, those nations which regularly conduct census of their population.

Recommend passing the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference 50 is an excellent overview of post-war citizenship issues, post the Treaty of San Franciso (1952) and special permanent residents.