Talk:Constitutional Council (France)/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Constitutional Council of France/GA1)
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to cover the main topics well, and has mostly good referencing, but there are a number of style and copyediting issues that need to be addressed before the article will pass GAN. Some comments:
- The lead is short for this length of an article; it should perhaps be twice the current length. See WP:LEAD.
- The last section, "location", could just as well be moved to the lead, and perhaps be stuck in somewhere else, such as perhaps membership or history (or anywhere). It just doesn't look good with a one-sentence section.
- Could an infobox be added, along with the official logo (per French article). I think {{Infobox Government agency}} would be fine. What is essential is the logo, name, chair, location, establishment, members and official web site.
- With the web site in the infobox, the "external links" section can be removed. Remember that an "ideal" article does not have an "external link" or "see also" section, because these will have been incorporated into the main text, the infobox and the references.
- Images are all free, but there is on the French article several interior images of the court. Could these also be added. Could the exterior image be moved further up (it looks bad when it crashes with the references). Also please add {{commonscat}} to link to the category on the Commons.
- There are quite a number in-line external links, and these should be removed. They should either be moved to the references or the external links.
- The comment under "The Council and the enactment of legislation in France" is just not how we write things here on Wikipeida. In addition to the weasel approach of stating what the reader "should" do, it is our approach that Wikipedia provides the full array of encyclopedic information on the topic. Basically the first thing you are doing is asking people to leave Wikipedia and go somewhere else to read about the topic, while what people actually want is a objective and down-to-earth text right here. Please remove this statement.
- The header "The Council and the enactment of legislation in France" contains a lot of redundant information. It is implied by the scope of the article that it is about the council, and by nature of that also in France. Therefore, "Enactment of legislation" would bear the same meaning. I would also have said that "evolution" is redundant to "history" (though I will let it pass), and that "members" would be more accurate than "membership".
- There are a lot of very short paragraphs, particularly in the "membership" section, but also throughout the rest of the article.
- Under "power and tasks" there are is a numbered list, each with a paragraph. It would be a lot better if these were just left as separate paragraphs with no list and numbering.
- Could you convert the list of members to a table, with for instance the sections "member", "appointed by" and "member since", and perhaps a "notes" (including stating that Debré is president).
- The section "Powers and tasks" has large lacks in referencing, and there are also other areas with such lacks. Note that in-line referencing should not be used when the main referencing is as footnote. I am also concerned that using the constitution is not acceptable, because it is a primary source, and that all legislative texts need to be interpreted. This can only be done in secondary sources, and then it is these that need to be referenced. If the article numbers are there simply to guide the user, then it is fine. See WP:PRIMARY.
- Titles (such as prime minister) are only capitalized when in front of the name). So you say: Prime Minister François Fillon; François Fillon is prime minister; François Fillon is Prime Minister of France (because in the latter, it is a unique title, and therefore becomes a proper noun).
- We no longer wikilink dates.
Once these matters have been seen to, tell me (here or on my talk page) and I will come around and make a copyedit to get rid of any small grammatical, flow and style issues. If the above points are seen to, the article will be very close to good quality. Otherwise, I would like to say that it is an interesting, comprehensive and balanced article covering an important topic. Keep up the good work. Arsenikk (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)