Talk:Australian nationality law/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Taweetham (talk · contribs) 00:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

In general, the nominated article is well written. The historical aspect and background is informative and comprehensive. However, some practical and recent stories are not covered. In view of GA nomination, I think the current article is fairly good but we should allow some time for further improvement.

Please see how we can add an internal link from Australian citizenship test to the current article.
The first sentence in that article already links to this page.
Residence calculator https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/tools/residence-calculator may be added as an external link on the current article.
I'm not sure that a residence calculator really belongs here. If it were a quick eligibility test for citizenship, then that would be appropriate. Not sure about this though.
The book "our common bond" https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/test-and-interview/our-common-bond should be an external link on either this article or Australian citizenship test.
Added to citizenship test page.
"Interview" and test are done in the same appointment. The word interview in not mentioned in the article.
The interview happens immediately before the test and its only purpose is to make sure a candidate can take the actual test. It's redundant to add in and not actually a requirement under the Citizenship Act.
Citizenship ceremony is usually organised by Local_government_in_Australia on Australia Day. I do not see this aspect in the article yet. The pledge is an important part of the law. It is available in two form with/without the word God. There are two different articles that should be linked to/from the nominated article: Oath_of_Allegiance_(Australia) and Australian citizenship affirmation.
Added information on citizenship ceremony. The full text of the pledge belongs in the article on the oath, so that's not added here.
Some statistics such as the number of conferral or the time it take to process application can be added to the article.
Added 2020-21 stats on conferral.
The discussion of dual nationality can be in the context of this 'Citizenship saga' in 2017 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-04/citizenship-register:-every-citizenship-by-australias-senators/9223264
Added reference to eligibility crisis.
The discussion of loss of citizenship can be in the context of this 2015 change in the law https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/laws-stripping-terrorists-citizenship-could-hamper-prosecutions/11259074
Added information on expanded powers.
The government agency that takes care of citizenship was DIMIA/DIAC and it is now Home Affairs. Probably need to mention at least the current one as an internal link once.
In the infobox.
There are a lot of good photos on Commons.
1. https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+day+citizenship+site:+commons.wikimedia.org
2. https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+passport+site%3A+commons.wikimedia.org&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjJ5KX12-TzAhVQ3HMBHRtABUkQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=australia+passport+site%3A+commons.wikimedia.org&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1C5Q1j6YmDObmgCcAB4AIABZYgB3gaSAQQxMC4ymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=nzF2YYmZBNC4z7sPm4CVyAQ&bih=672&biw=1309
Please see if you can use any of them for this article. The current photo was from the Australian Citizenship Day and I moved it to the article instead. It is probably more popular to have special citizenship conferral ceremonies around Australia day.
Added a photo to replace what you took out.
If possible, please kindly check if you can use https in reference links rather than http. I only fixed the AustLII template but have no time to look into others.
They're all HTTPS.
If possible, the acquisition/loss/resumption of citizenship section should be arranged in a similar way to the law or United_States_nationality_law#Current_scheme. The content about New Zealand special arrangement is rather about the status of permanent residency of Special Category Visa. (Separate articles on Migration Act 1958, Visa_policy_of_Australia or Australian permanent resident may also explain this in details.) 'New Zealand special arrangement' may not worth to be a subsection and some content may be moved to related articles mentioned. Taweetham (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with following the US article. I've formatted the AU article to match very closely with the NZ page, which I just took through the FA process. So I think we're good on that formatting. As for the actual New Zealand content, I think it's necessary to leave in to give readers the appropriate context for what status New Zealanders qualify for Australian citizenship. Some of them need permanent residency for naturalisation and some don't. Some of their children are born AU citizens and some aren't. Not possible to explain without the content on SCV. Horserice (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with the structure if we take into account the number of people in Australia from New Zealand. In this regards, this is definitely warranted a subsection. The law describes a number of ways things can happen. Some are rarely occurs and some happen more often. We may not need to structure the article in the same way as the law. After rereading, I still believe that some of the content belong to Australian_permanent_resident#Citizens_of_New_Zealand and Special Category Visa. --Taweetham (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

This is more than enough for GA. Thanks so much for addressing all of the comments and congratulations to the editor. --Taweetham (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]