Talk:British people/GA1

GA Review

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

Okay, beginning a review. I will copyedit any straighforward fixes; please revert if I inadvertently change meaning. queries to appear below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British (also known as Britons, informally Brits or archaically Britishers) are citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories, and their descendants. - I paused here as the Isle of man is a part of the UK, so not sure how best to phrase this. "British Isles" doesn't work either due to Eire. And how about catholic citizens of Northern Ireland? Tricky. Not sure the best approach here.

NB: lead is good otherwise.

Oppenheimer found that "by far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales" - can be rephrased without quotes I think.

I am intrigued by the findings of Stephen Oppenheimer here, are they widely accepted now? I am sking as I am a neophyte in the area, and if there are any rebuttals or alternative POvs which still hold sway they might be worth mentioning.

Despite centuries of military and religious conflict, commercially England, Wales and Scotland had a "long history of interdependence" and had been "drawing increasingly together" - be nice to word this without quotes too.

stimulated an escalation in political hostilities.. - why not "escalated political hostilities"

At this time the complementary notion of British national identity.. - why "complementary"?

British national identity was explored and developed. - sounds a bit like a filler - vague.

attempts to solidify the concepts of Britishness.. - maybe a better verb is "meld" or something like it, i.e. attaching Britishness to 'x'.

would have thought darts rated a mention in sports.

WRT comprehensiveness, nothing is jumping out at me as a glaring omission. I need to ponder this one.

The prose is good.

musing on whether a paragraph on Anti-British sentiment is needed rather than a seealso at the bottom, but the page is rather long as is.

Wow! That was a fast review! Thanks for taking the time out for this interesting article about an incredibly important nation (if nothing else!) in global history. I've made some ammendments as you've suggested (and probably best shown by this diff). I'm under the impression you're going to return back (?), so if you'd like to take a look at the changes and report back that's fine. Going through GAC for feedback, so there's no rush on my part. :) --Jza84 | Talk 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the done ones, can you let me know what you think of other ideas/suggestions? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :). OK, regarding the opening sentence, if we are talking about say Irish nationalist people of Northern Ireland who hold an Irish passport, then they are citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and not British. Therefore it is a truism that the "British are citizens of the United Kingdom", because if you have citizenship with the Irish republic, you are Irish. Complex I know. Perhaps this could be explained in a footnote if you think this is a point of concern?

I was reluctant to rephrase Oppenheimer because I was concerned meaning would be lost, and the sentence altered down the line. What would you suggest? I haven't come across another explanation of the genetic history of the British. Research by Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes seem to dovetail nicely with each other.

Re "Despite centuries of military and religious conflict, commercially England, Wales and Scotland had a "long history of interdependence" and had been "drawing increasingly together"," again, it could lose the quotation marks, but I was concerned about future edits altering the meaning, and/or editors/readers not picking up on the claim.

I'm not sure a paragraph on Anti-British sentiment is going to be inline with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template, and there's little to be extracted from that article anyway right now AFAICT. How does that sit with you? --Jza84 | Talk 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"OK, regarding the opening sentence, if we are talking about say Irish nationalist people of Northern Ireland who hold an Irish passport, then they are citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and not British." No they are (both) as they are still citizens of the United Kingdom, they could not for example be escorted to the border as aliens and could for example be tried as traitors if they did something traitorous against the crown. --PBS (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's probably even more complex than that again; Northern Ireland, under the GFA, permits citizens to be Irish or British nationals, so yes, they couldn't be identified as aliens, but no, they're not British people under British or Irish law. The wording in the article however is still correct: "The British are citizens of the United Kingdom". --Jza84 | Talk 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(resurfacing) sorry folks, been a tad incommunicado for a day. Will digest and add tuppence forthwith. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Jza84 | Talk 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed your replies above. All looks good. As it is a lengthy and fairly important subject, I will just ask someone else if I am missing something obvious. Won't be too long. PS: I thought I saw a ^{[citation needed]} tag in there somehwere..Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: To sum up, it is a fascinating article and a great read. I have some niggling doubt about the scope - is it somehow too inclusive and has it gone off topic, or are there bits missing? I don't think so I just wanted to double check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crack open the bubbly then, it's over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try and keep fine tuning this to make it even better. :) --Jza84 | Talk 18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]