Talk:British subject/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk · contribs) 17:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one (and sorry it's taken so long for the article to be reviewed!) I notice that you put this article up for FA, so I'm going to be particularly picky with this review, to hopefully help you later if/when you decide to give FA another go Cavie78 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead should summarise the article and, therefore, no information should appear in the article which does not appear in the article. Roughly half the article consists of a history of the term 'British subject', but only the current definition is explained in the lead. You mention the number of people who hold the status and the number of those who do not have right of abode in the UK, but this is not in the main body of the article. Similarly, you say "The status does not automatically grant the holder right of abode in the United Kingdom but most British subjects do have this entitlement" but this isn't stated in the article. Also, why is this the case?

Well, the article is about the current definition though. Half the article is on the history of the term because the nationality wouldn't really make sense without understanding why it's limited in the way that it is.
Will address lack of info on having or not having right of abode.
I don't think it makes sense to repeat the number of status holders in the main body. It provides context up front for how many people the current regulations apply to. This stat in the lead also made it through FAC for British National (Overseas) and GAN for British protected person, so it'd be nice to keep it in the leads of all the articles in this series for consistency.

I appreciate that the article is about the current definition, but I think you need a brief mention in the lead of the context too, considering that takes up in the article. I'm not asking you to remove the stat from the lead, I'm saying I think it should be included in the body as well. It seems really odd that you give a figure in the lead, but don't state this in the body Cavie78 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, reworded lead a bit to start with multiple definitions. Info on right of abode added as part of Rights and Privileges.

Development from feudal allegiance

"Calvin's Case in 1608 established the principle of jus soli, that all those who were born within Crown dominions and allegiance were natural-born subjects." "allegiance" sounds odd to me in this context - "born within crown allegiance"? "countries that owed/swore allegiance to the English crown"?

Removed the word "allegiance" without really changing the meaning of the sentence. The model of social contract in that era was based on allegiance; that a person had a duty to serve their sovereign, who afforded his protection over the people that he was given a divine right to rule. When you ask if a country could swear allegiance to the Crown, I don't think that model applies like that. A local ruler could swear his loyalty to the Crown, but at the time of this case, that would have just included English feudal vassals.

"and could not voluntarily renounce British subject status until it was first permitted in 1870" I think "and could not voluntarily renounce British subject status until 1870, when it was first permitted" works better, but I don't mind if you don't want to change

Done.

"Prior to 1708, foreigners could only be naturalised through Acts of Parliament" An Act of Parliament per person?

Yep, an Act of Parliament per person. Two instances of these bills were passed in the 20th century (1911 and 1975).

"A denizen created by this method" I know you have a wikilink, but for ease of reading I think you need to better tie this to the previous sentence. Suggest "By this method, a foreigner would become a denizen - although they were no longer considered an alien, they could not pass subject status to their children by descent and were barred from Crown service and public office

Done.

"This mechanism was never used after 1873" -> "This mechanism was no longer used after 1873"

Done.

"were deemed to have received the status by imperial naturalisation that was valid" -> "were deemed to have received the status by imperial naturalisation, which was valid"

Split off the next part of that sentence. Should make that bit easier to read.

"which formalised the status as a common nationality among the United Kingdom and its Dominions" You talk about protectorates &c. in the next paragraph, but what about colonies?

Was implied that the UK was responsible for the colonies, but changed to make it explicit.

Transition to Commonwealth citizenship

"ever growing assertions of independence from London" Are you talking about the 1947 Commonwealth conference in London or the UK parliament?

It's actually referring to the Dominions asserting their ability to act separately from the UK.

I read it that London was making the assertions. Could you make this clearer? Cavie78 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased, should sound better.

"coexisted" I can't see a note stating which form of English the article is written in, but "co-existed" is BritEng

Done.

"British subjects under the previous meaning who held that status on 1 January 1949 because of a connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining colony became Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). This was the principal form of British nationality during this period of time." I think this could be worded better. "connection" could be taken to mean even a tenuous link. I read the first sentence as though it only refered to a small number of people, but the second sentence says it was the prinicipal form of British nationality immediately after 1st Jan 1949?

Rephrased to more explicitly call out CUKC as the principal form.

"Outside of the United Kingdom, the legal significance of British subject status varied depending on each Commonwealth country's legislation" I think you need to clarify what you mean in this paragraph. For instance, a British subject born in India who moved to Australia would immediately be able to vote in Australian elections? A British subject could vote in an New Zealand election just by asking for a ballot paper?
You talk about UK Acts of Parliament, what about the rights of British subjects to settle in other Comonwealth countries?
"At first, British subjects retained in some of these countries eligibility to vote in elections, for preferred paths to citizenship, and for welfare benefits" Think something's got a bit mixed up here?

Rephrased that part a bit, but wasn't sure what you were talking about that got mixed up.

Redefinition as residual nationality class

"CUKCs with the right of abode in the United Kingdom or were closely connected" -> "CUKCs with the right of abode in the United Kingdom or those closely connected"?

Done.

"Those who could not be reclassified into either of these statuses and were no longer associated with a British territory" -> "Those who could not be reclassified into either of these statuses and who were no longer associated with a British territory"

Done.

Acquisition and loss

"individuals with this status hold it by virtue of their own or their father's birth in former British India" -> "individuals with this status hold it by virtue of their own, or their father's, birth in former British India"

Done.

"British subjects not connected with Ireland automatically" -> "British subjects not connected with Ireland, automatically"

Subject and action would be separated by that comma, so I don't think I agree with this.

Without the comma it's not clear whether you mean people not automatically connected with Ireland or people not connected with Ireland losing their nationality automatically Cavie78 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased to put Irish connection at the end of that sentence, should be fine now.

"British subject status may be deprived" Think removed is better than deprived?

"British subjects may be stripped of the status if it was fraudulently acquired." Should be better.

Rights and privileges

"British subjects are also eligible to serve in reserved and non-reserved Civil Service posts" So all posts?

Done

"Individuals who become British citizens automatically" -> "Individuals who become British citizens, automatically"

Also don't agree with this.

The reason I suggested this is it's not clear whether you're talking about people who became British citizens automatically, or people who became British citizens then losing their subject status Cavie78 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be better now.

"British subjects who do not hold and have not lost any other nationality" -> "British subjects who do not hold, and have not lost, any other nationality"

Done.

Restrictions

Ok

Images

Ok

Sources

Look really good

🙏

General

Are there any comporable classes of nationality for other countries? Did other countries have the same concept of allegiance to the monarch of is this unique to England/Britain?

The concept of allegiance like this isn't unique to Britain (the book Leviathan illustrates the social contract for Western monarchies of that era), but other countries didn't choose to split their citizenship/nationality six different ways. There's other less-than-full citizenship nationalities that exist, but none that are quite similar to this one.

With the British Nationality Act 1981, was it possible for people to retain British subject status rather than becoming, for example, British Dependent Territories citizens and would there have been any benefit from doing so?

This would only have been possible for British subjects connected to Ireland. Everyone else loses that status if they obtain any other nationality. Anyone doing this could have settled in a dependent territory and possibly wanted to get BDTC status to make it easier to get/retain belonger status or something (don't have other solid ideas of why anyone would have wanted to do this).

That's it from me, so I'm putting on hold. I notice you've already made changes so you might want to check my comments on the lead at the top of the review, as I've only just added. Ping me with any questions Cavie78 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavie78: Addressed almost all points, but a few require some extra research and will be addressed later. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Horserice:. I've added a few replies Cavie78 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavie78: All points addressed, hope these fixes are good for you. Horserice (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks @Horserice:, happy to promote. Good luck at FA! Cavie78 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work, the article has come along way in the past few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.228 (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]