Talk:Indian nationality law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 18:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Overview

I'll take this on for review as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/January_2022. Should have comments soon. Mujinga (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I was about to review, when I saw you already reserved this. No problem. Will include as secondary feedback the following:

• Sections names might be clearer with inclusion of years in them
  • The problem with this is that there's no definitive year to begin with. While substantive Company rule in India is regarded as having started in 1757, it's not clear when English/British nationality regulations became relevant in India since the Company had settlements beginning in 1600. I'm also not keen on this because the last section ends with "–present". Years in sections seems to work better when an article has a defined time period to cover. Horserice (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I believe that #Legislative responses to migration would be better off underneath #Acquisition and loss of citizenship given the scope, and also duplication of restrictions.
  • The content in "Post-independence policies" details the history and evolution of policies that led up to current regulations while the text in "Acquisition and loss of citizenship" exclusively covers current rules. There is some duplication of content because some of that is required to give appropriate context when covering the history of those regulations. All of that to say, I don't think they should be combined or the current rules will be too mixed in with history that a reader doesn't need if they just want to get to the rules. Horserice (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• For the breadth requirement, I believe it's completely missing a section on Stateless people in India. Some ideas may be found at Statelessness#South_Asia. Happy editing and reviewing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • OK @Shushugah:! Cheers for the comments Mujinga (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• This is a well-written article on a complicated topic. Please check Shushugah's comments above and my comments below. I'd like to have a look at the structure tomorrow with fresh eyes as well, but happy to give comments on that and the lead on a second round so for now can put the review onhold and wait for responses. Mujinga (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hiya just popped in to see how things are going and made some replies. You said you wanted to look into the clarification and there's the question from Shushugah above about statelessness, so I'll leave it to you to answer before then making comments about the lead. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Added coverage on statelessness in expanded content and clarification tag is resolved. Horserice (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Great work on the article, we are pretty much there now. I made some copyedits on the Sikkim section, please see what you think and I had a question about "unlanded residents". Did you mean to say that? I can AGF if you did. For the lead, I put it into paragraphs, again see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I did, but I just changed the phrasing instead this time. The copyedit and lead changes are okay with me. Horserice (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
          • OK all there then and nice one on sorting the verification issue quickly. Congrats on the good article! Mujinga (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio check

• earwig throws up no probs

Pictures

• Infobox pic is licensed ok
• A chance to add other photos? I'm blanking a bit on what they could be though.
  • I also could not find anything in Commons to put into this article. Horserice (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    • thanks for checking! Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

• ok

Lead

• Since "The Citizenship Act, 1955" redirects here, it can also be bolded
• I'll come back here after reading the article

Terminology

• what is a juridical person? source says "juristic persons" which also is confusing for me
  • Yes, this can be pretty weird, bear with me here. A juridical/juristic/legal person is would be any entity that could be regarded in law as being able to collectively act as a "person", separately from the individual persons making up that entity. The Crown or the Holy See would be examples, as well as corporations in India. This is contrasted with a natural person, a single human person. See corporate personhood. Horserice (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    • i see yes i was wondering if that's what you meant. since the source uses a similar phrase i guess that works Mujinga (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Company administration

• ok

Direct imperial rule

• "A subject who locally naturalised in Bengal" suggest "For example, a subject who locally naturalised in Bengal"
  • sorry i meant "For example, a subject who was locally naturalised in Bengal" or "For example, a subject locally naturalised in Bengal" Mujinga (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Done.

Unequal status

• ok

Partition and transition

• "Commonwealth citizen is defined in this Act to have the same meaning." suggest "A Commonwealth citizen was defined in the Act in the same way" or similar
  • Done.

Republic and a national citizenship

• ok

Territorial acquisitions

• Please deal with "clarification needed" tag
  • Addressed one, researching other one.
    • Done.

Commonwealth citizenship

• ok

Legislative responses to migration

• ok

Acquisition and loss of citizenship

• "All persons born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987 automatically received citizenship by birth regardless of the nationalities of their parents. From 1 July 1987 until 3 December 2004, children born in the country received Indian citizenship by birth if at least one parent was a citizen. Since then, citizenship by birth is granted only if both parents are Indian citizens, or if one parent is a citizen and the other is not considered an illegal migrant.[59][60]" - I'm a bit confused on what the sources are being used for here. For example, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines says "Born between July 1, 1987 and the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 with at least one parent who is a citizen of India at the time of his/her birth" so that's different to your "From 1 July 1987". And I don't see what the other source is doing.
  • Updated citation.
• do you mean to say "are minor children of Indian citizens" ? - for me it's normal to say minors or children, but not both
  • I specifically wrote "minor children" here to specify that I'm referring to children under 18.
    • yes that's the thing; for me, a minor is a child under 18, or a child under 18 is a minor, so saying child and minor togetehr is weird to me (I write in Br Eng so that might explain it the confusion?) Mujinga (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Okay let's use this sentence in the article as an example: "Minor children of a person who gave up citizenship also cease to be citizens." How would you phrase this? Would you drop "minor" and just say "Children of a person who..."? Then that would imply that adult children of Indian citizens who relinquish citizenship also lose citizenship, because the word "children" does not exclusively describe minors. Horserice (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I see, thanks for the example. I would phrase it as "Children of a person who gave up citizenship who were still minors also cease to be citizens." or perhaps "When people gave up citizenship their children would also cease to be citizens if they were under 18." To put it another way if you can point me to sources uses this phraseology then fine, otherwise i'd say it's better to change it since for me at least it's quite jarring to read "minor children" Mujinga (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Okay here are academic examples in medicine, sociology, and law:

Minor Children of Palliative Patients: A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Family Interventions

Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children: Comparisons Between State and National Estimates

Effect of Naturalization Abroad of American Citizens on their Minor Children Born in the United States.

And a few news articles:

Parents Upheld On Committing Minor Children, The New York Times

A Startling Decision; Minor Children of Naturalized Parents Not Citizens, The New York Times

Supreme Court directs free education to minor children of rape victim, The Hindu

An exact search on Google Scholar also yields about 60,000 academic sources that use the exact phrase "minor children", and another 58,000 news articles using that found on Google News. It's definitely not a phrase used in conversation very often, so I can understand why it would sound off, but it is commonly used in writing. Horserice (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Great thanks that answers my question then. I had a quick check and the term seems to be used in Indian English as well Mujinga (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• " registration must renounce their previous nationalities" - nationality?
  • Written in plural to cover people with multiple nationalities. Horserice (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Overseas citizenship

• ok

References

• Referencing is excellent bar a few queries above. Sources are reliable.