Talk:Russian citizenship law

Abkhazians and South Ossetians

Under what provisions of the Russian natioanlity law are Abkhazians and South Ossetians granted Russian citizenship? The Observant (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Until 2001 every former Soviet citizen could apply for Russian citizenship through registration (Article 18, p. "g" of 1991 Act). Abkhazians and South Ossetians formed no more than 5-10% of Soviet citizens who did this. 92.36.70.105 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian citizenship law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 00:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• Move the reference in the infobox to somewhere in the body, probably the last paragraph of Dual citizenship arrangements with other former Soviet states, and expand upon its content since its not mentioned in the article.

• Moved and expanded.

• List when the law was amended in the "|amendments=" parameter

• This would be quite unwieldy and the layout would be terrible. There's 35 separate amendments for this law alone.

• Fair enough

Lead

• Put the Russian translation of "On Citizenship of the Russian Federation" after it's mentioned: ({{lang-ru|О гражданстве Российской Федерации}})

• Done.

• The infobox says it was amended, mention when it was amended in the first paragraph, and if possible, why it was amended/what was amended.

• Per above, there's 35 separate amendments for the primary law and would result in something unwieldy. Additionally, since the subject of the article is Russian citizenship law in general rather than the 2002 law specifically, I believe it's fine just to describe the major changes in the body, which is already done.

• Fair enough

• "and residents were Soviet citizens" → "and its residents were Soviet citizens"

• Done.

Terminology

• No comments

History

Imperial Russian subjects

• Remove the see also template for Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire, it's not relevant

• Done.

• "the Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire" → "the Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire"

• Done.

• "general requirements were required" → "general requirements were present"

• Rephrased.

• "who could naturalize as Russian subjects" → "who could be naturalized as Russian subjects"

• Done.

• "authority over naturalization" → "authority of naturalization"

• Typically, it's authority 'over', 'on', or 'for'. Authority 'of' sounds very off.

• Got it

• "who lost had her" → "who had lost her"

• Done.

• lowercase "emperor"

• Done.

Revolutionary Russia and Soviet Union

• Remove the see also template for Russian Revolution, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and Soviet Union, it's not relevant. Keep the see also template for Soviet nationality law

• Done.

• "After the start of the October Revolution" → "After the October Revolution"

• Done.

• "in 1922. Citizenship regulations were restructured" → "in 1922, and citizenship regulations were restructured"

• Done.

• Remove the comma after 1977 Constitution of the Soviet Union

• Rephrased.

• Lowercase "president of the Soviet Union"

• Done.

Transition and post-Soviet Russia

• Remove the see also template for Dissolution of the Soviet Union since it's not relevant

• Done.

• Where the 2002 citizenship reforms are located, mention them by name "On Citizenship of the Russian Federation"

• Done.

Acquisition and loss of citizenship

• Lowercase "president of Russia"

• Done.

Other

• Move {{Portal bar|Russia}} above {{Nationality laws}}

• Done.

Overall

• Stable, no war edits
• Neutral
• Images have proper licenses
• Well referenced
• Focused
• No OR or copyright vios

@Horserice: I've finished my preliminary review of the article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 01:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: Thanks for looking through it. Addressed almost all your points, and need your input on some. Horserice (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Horserice: Everything looks good. I'll go ahead and pass this review. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 21:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.