Talk:German nationality law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) 19:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see this article has been waiting for quite some time for review, so I'm happy to take this one on. This will be my first GA review as the reviewer, but having nominated many articles for GA in the past I have a good understanding of the process. I plan to read through the article in full over the next few days and will provide my comments then. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

A few issues which I have noticed following a full read which require addressing:

• Per MOS:LEAD, specifically MOS:INTRO, the lead could use some work to include other aspects of the article. Right now it only covers what the current legislation is on Germany nationality/citizenship, but it doesn't cover anything on the majority of the article related to the historical rules and changes over time. The lead should essentially be able to be a stand-alone overview of the highlights of the entire article, and in this regard it is currently lacking.

• Added two paragraphs to the lead.

• Is there a translation for Schutzgebietsangehörige that could be added? All other instances of German terms have counterpart English expressions, so it seems odd that this one doesn't.

• Rearranged this sentence to show that translation.

• The data of naturalised citizens seems to now be out of date, as the reference provided now covers naturalisations which occurred in 2021. This should be updated in the article for 2021 based on the reference provided or the reference should be swapped to cover the 2020 details.

• Fixed.

• One of the journal DOI numbers appears to contain an error (Renzsch 1989).

• Huh, don't know what happened here so I just removed it.

All references provided generally appear to be from reliable sources and conform to the formatting guidance. Some of the journals are unavailable to me (behind the paywall or only accessible from an academic institution) but accepting these in good faith, and a check through other sources which are open to me shows no cause for concern. No copyvio or OR detected, and all other aspects, incl. the writing quality, broad coverage, neutrality, stability, and illustration have been met.

Placing this article on hold until the issues above have been remedied. Please ping me if you have any questions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Sims2aholic8: Thanks for taking the time to go through this article, I've gone ahead and addressed your points. Let me know if there's anything else that should be tweaked. Cheers, Horserice (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making those changes, I'm happy with how these turned out. Another read through there hasn't brought up anything further so I'm happy to pass this article now. Great work! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)