Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maltese nationality law/archive1

Image review

• File:Coat_of_arms_of_Malta.svg needs a tag for the design

• Changed this to an older design since that would have been the CoA at the time of passing. I tagged this one as PD under Maltese law.

• File:European_Economic_Area_and_Switzerland.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• So the main concern here the use of these specific colors? Or that there should be a pattern on the fill? I'm really unfamiliar working with images and so I'm trying to understand what is actionable for this. Horserice (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• There should be a way to understand the image without being able to see the colours - so that could be a pattern, or a symbol, or some other way of labelling. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've reached out to the original creator of that image for assistance. If we get to a point where the image is an issue for passing the review, I'll just remove it. Horserice (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the image at issue has been removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Arcticocean - support

The recent ECJ case was timely, as you have been developing this article for several years and had it more or less ready to propose for FA status. I enjoyed reading this article.

I am surprised that after the recent case, the article is stable enough to meet FACR no. 1(e) but the page history shows that it clearly is. This will just be a review of its prose and readability, section by section:

• Lead:
  • Good, and initially conveys the legal significance of Maltese and EU citizenship with ease.
  • they continue to have favoured status when residing in the United Kingdom: is this WP:WEASEL? If the favoured status is the Commonwealth status, it may be better to make the link explicit, as in something like 'favoured status as Commonwealth citizens when residing in the UK; they are eligible to vote [etc]'. Otherwise, I'm not sure anything in the article supports the description of favoured status.
    • Rephrased. I was using "favoured status" in a generic way to try to highlight that they have more rights in the UK than other foreigners but I can see how that might be a bit confusing.
• Terminology:
  • Good.
  • I was surprised at the whole first paragraph being supported by the Kondo (2001) work, but I checked a preview of the work and it is.
• History:
  • Good. A long and complex history is presented briskly and in an encyclopedic manner. Legal-technical language use is appropriate.
  • British subject status was standardised as a common nationality across the Empire and its Dominions with passage of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 – perhaps this could more clearly explain the nature of BSS. 'Standardised as a common nationality' has some ambiguity. Was BSS a secondary citizenship, held in addition to a primary one, as presumably with Commonwealth citizen status which is treated later? Or did Maltese nationals (as they would otherwise be) become solely British subjects?
    • I was avoiding adding more context on 19th century regulations in an attempt to not overweight the article towards covering British law but I suppose discussing the standardisation of the status makes no sense without that context. Added a paragraph on that.
  • All British subjects/Commonwealth citizens – Reword (MOS:SLASH).
    • Done.
  • Foreign women married to Maltese men could acquire citizenship by registration with no further requirements – This left me wondering about foreign men married to Maltese women and whether that information is known. Perhaps specifying the situation would seem gratuitous or even create WP:NPOV issues – you would know best.
    • Post-independence, foreign men married to Maltese women would not have acquired Maltese citizenship. The article discusses coverture and how the traditional assumption in imperial law (really it was European law in general) was that women followed the nationalities of their husbands. Starting from that position, we can see how colonial (and later Maltese) law relaxes from that position. Basically what I'm saying is that I thought I wrote it in a way where that doesn't need to be written explicitly. Do you think it's unclear and something needs to be added?
  • Dual/multiple citizenship was constitutionally prohibited – Reword (MOS:SLASH).
    • Done.
  • Although Maltese citizens who naturalised as foreign citizens continued to automatically lose their Maltese citizenship – there are conflicting grammatical tenses here. '
    • Rephrased.
  • In the 2025 European Court of Justice case … Functioning of the European Union – I think that more needs to be said about this and the consequences for Maltese citizenship by investment (WP:FACR § 1(b)).
    • Hmm while the expectation is that the pathway gets shut down, there haven't been moves by the government to do so just yet and I can't find a source that even says something like "Malta is expected to end this pathway", etc. On the ruling itself, I suppose I could pull more information from the ruling itself, but I'm hesitant to do that due to WP:PRIMARY. The judgement is pretty fresh so I think it will be so time before academic secondary sources become available that discuss this specific event. Is there anything specific you would prefer added here?
• Acquisition and loss of citizenship:
  • may naturalise after three years residence – missing apostrophe: three years' residence.
    • Done.

Well done for some great work on this article. Although I have suggested changes to individual sentences above, I am able already to support for prose (writing, comprehensiveness, NPOV, style, and length). Arcticocean ■ 10:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for going through it! I'm glad you found it a good read. Horserice (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Re the foreign women married to… and the ECJ items, if you've considered the feedback and are happy as is, I've no further concerns. Thanks, Arcticocean ■ 17:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Arcticocean, I just want to check if should read your comment above as a formal support for this nomination to be promoted to FA? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Arcticocean ■ 20:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka

• This distinction is clearly defined in non-English speaking countries... Are you sure? I would delete the whole sentence.

• That is what the source says. I understand it is difficult to confirm this fully and it might not be entirely relevant since Malta is not core Anglosphere, so I just removed it.

• ...is used in other laws... No law is mentioned in the previous sentences.

• The very first sentence mentions the Maltese Citizenship Act.

• Not in the main text. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, added it in that section. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• ...after their loss of Rhodes to the Ottoman Empire I would delete.

• Done.

• ...the Order of Saint John... I would not use this designation, for they were introduced as Knights Hospitallers. I would use "the Knights/Hospitallers".

• Changed.

• The 1802 Treaty of Amiens restored Malta to the Order but the organisation had been thrown into disarray following its 1798 defeat, which made enforcing this provision impossible. Regardless of the treaty, local residents vehemently opposed restoring the Knights to power and opted for continued British rule. Britain itself decided against leaving Malta after considering its strategic military value in the Mediterranean Sea following resumption of the Napoleonic Wars. I would delete.

• Done.

• ...; a subject who locally naturalised in Canada was a British subject there, but not in the UK or New Zealand I would delete.

• I changed this to specify Malta if that makes this better.

• There were two exceptions to this:... Only one exception is mentioned.

• There are two exceptions:

a) a wife married to a husband who lost his British subject status was able to retain British nationality by declaration

b) a British-born widow or divorcée who had lost her British nationality through marriage could reacquire that status without meeting residence requirements after the dissolution or termination of her marriage

• For me b) is not an exception, because she lost her British nationality by her marriage to a foreigner before being renaturalised. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Britain somewhat relaxed these measures in 1971 for patrials, subjects whose parents or grandparents were born in the United Kingdom,[21] which gave effective preferential treatment to white Commonwealth citizens. Is this relevant?

• I guess the end part is more relevant to other nationality law articles in the Commonwealth than this one, so I omitted that. I left the part on patrials in to illustrate that despite the changing relationship between Britain and colonies/soon-to-be former colonies, there were still vestiges of constitutional/nationality law that bound them together.

• I would link jus soli to "doctrine of birthright"

• Done. I omitted the wikilink to jus soli on "birthright citizenship" since the two would have been very close.

• Sections "Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption" and "Voluntary acquisition" mainly repeat information from previous sections. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Those sections show the regulations as they are currently, rather than what they were in the past. It's important for readers to be able to just skip to that section if that's all they want to know, which I would argue is essential to an article like this. Thanks for giving the page a read. Horserice (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I would delete parallel texts from the previous sections. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I omitted and shuffled around a few parts where I thought appropriate. I don't really want to cut too much or else it becomes harder to show progression in legislation over time. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting article. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Not much to say about the sourcing here - some inconsistent identifiers, the use of a few media reports for recent events seems fine (people tend to overuse them). I wonder if there are primary sources (government statements, parliamentary reports etc) though. Source #10 has an unusual format, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

- Could you point out which sources are using inconsistent identifiers?

- There's one press release by the government I can find but it doesn't say anything about what the government is going to do in response to the ruling. The citizenship by investment scheme is still listed as a valid pathway online. Will likely need to wait a while for the government to change local legislation and for academic sourcing to become available that covers the ruling. Horserice (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

JSTOR, DOI and stuff seem to be inconsistent between sources. One might wonder what government/parliament are doing about the rulings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

- I really don't get what you mean by inconsistent. Do you mean that some sources have more identifiers than others? I'm just using what can be found, it would seem odd to cut down on those.

- The only official statement, which I linked to in my last reply, shows that the government has done nothing in response to the rulings yet. I can find absolutely no secondary sourcing that shows anything on how the government has substantively moved on this. The ruling is just too recent. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That's one of these cases where waiting for a secondary source may be the wrong move. If the government makes a statement, that's enough. The secondary source is necessary for analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the government statement, but not for its existence or content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay I added a brief statement on the (lack of) government response. Horserice (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Afternoon Jo-Jo. Is this one good to go? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien

General:

• The article could benefit from a section clearly defining what comes with citizenship, moving relevant information there and adding anything else worth noting.

• Hah, in an earlier FAC for the New Zealand nationality law article, I actually removed a similar section from that article specifically because it was brought up that a discussion of domestic rights is not relevant to nationality law. That content seems better suited to go in another article.

• I tried searching Commons for possible images but didn't turn up much. Best I could find was commons:Category:Immigration in Malta and commons:Category:Identity documents of Malta, if anything there seems useful.

• Yeah I don't think there's anything useful that could be included in the article at this time.

• Note that I've made some minor copyedits.

Early modern and colonial-era context:

• Is "context" necessary in the header? This seems to just be part of the history instead of context for it.

• Removed.

• "After the local population revolted and expelled the French" – Was this also in 1800?

• Changed the phrasing a bit.

• "Reserved matters" should be defined in the text so readers don't have to click the link to understand it.

• Added extra sentence to clarify.

• "However" can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence.

• Done.

• "no longer lost British nationality on marriage" – I suggest "upon marriage" or "after marriage"

• Done.

Changing relationship with Britain:

• The first paragraph doesn't mention Malta once. Maybe trim the details just to those that directly affected the people of Malta.

• Because Malta was still a British colony, it is important to illustrate its ties to the rest of the Empire/Commonwealth during this time. Attitudes on Malta shifted rather quickly from integration with Britain to full independence in the span of a decade and I feel that it is juxtaposed well with the changing regulations on Commonwealth immigration at that time during decolonisation. Feel free to suggest how specifically you would like to trim this, but I would prefer to retain it.

• "under the reformed system" – Should specify the reformed system of 1948(?) since it's a new section

• Added.

• "limiting this ability only to people born on the islands of Great Britain or Ireland" – Just to clarify for my own sake, this is specifically the two islands and excludes, say, the Hebrides?

• I changed it to the British Isles. Technically, the text says "born in Great Britain or Northern Ireland" but the definition of "Great Britain" in Irish law doesn't just mean the literal island of Great Britain. In this context, it's shorthand for "the parts of the UK that are not Northern Ireland".

Post-independence regulations:

• Is there any information about what happened for dual citizens who did not choose between Maltese or their other citizenship by the deadline?

• Presumably, they would have automatically lost Maltese citizenship if they failed to make an explicit choice. So far I have not even been able to locate a good source for the original text of the Maltese Constitution. The Maltese government legislation database only has a consolidated text incorporating all amendments, so it has been quite difficult to even find a primary source verifying that. I can continue to look but I've been coming up short so far.

Expanded citizenship access for Maltese diaspora:

• "became permitted to hold other nationalities in limited circumstances" – Also in 1989?

• Added year.

Citizenship by investment

• "its high risks in aiding money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption" – In what way?

• Added a brief description on a European Commission report that details this.

Ping me whenever you'd like me to take another look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Thebiguglyalien: Sorry for the delay, finally got to this. Thanks for taking a look. Horserice (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support promotion to featured article. My one remaining note is that the first paragraph of "Changing relationship with Britain" could explicitly state that "Commonwealth citizens" includes Maltese citizens, but I can also see an argument that this would be unnecessary or redundant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "and may vote in elections to the European Parliament." I think you need to add where.

• Added link to Malta constituency of the European Parliament.

• "Individuals who make a substantial financial investment in the state". Is "financial investment in the state" being used as a synonym for "donation". If so, I feel there is considerable difference between "investment" and "donation".

• Changed to "contribution".

• The lead states " When residing in the United Kingdom, Maltese citizens are eligible to vote in UK elections and serve in public office there" while the main article states that this was only before 2020.

• Moved a line around to make it more clear.

• "Malta was previously a colony of the British Empire". Previous to what? Is the precise date not known?

• I thought that phrasing was fine because the year was mentioned in the very next line, but I made it more direct. Horserice (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.