Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Government of France/archive1

Government of France[edit]

Self-nom I think it's rather complete. Some people thought I should discuss the budget in more detail, but this is, I think, another topic, worth of a separate article. David.Monniaux 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I'm working through the article now, and it is well-written. However, may I ask if all those section headings starting with the definite article ae really necessary. I would advocate removing all the thes from the beginning of section headings here. --Gareth Hughes 15:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Fixed. David.Monniaux 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It is clear to me what cabinet and gouvernement mean in different sections of this article, but the interchange between the two words isn't all that helpful. Would it be possible to define gouvernement and then use that term exclusively? --Gareth Hughes 15:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The capitalisation of certain titles, like president and prime minister is erratic. I tried correcting a few before I realised that I was probably doing it wrong. See titles. --Gareth Hughes 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Regretfully object: the article is very good, but the complete lack of English-language references is unacceptable, as there's no way for the average reader to examine the cited sources.~~ Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bunch of English references (many reference texts had official English translations). Do you think it's enough? David.Monniaux 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that looks just fine; I have no further objections. Support from me. Kirill Lokshin 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to support~~, but I have to ask: Are those italicised "see below" notices in parentheses really necessary? I'm not sure about the policy/convention on them, but I found them a bit offputting at times.~~ Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most of them but one — the one linking to the difference between statute law and regulations, which is I think quite a central topic of French constitutional law after 1958. David.Monniaux 20:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object at the moment. This is a very important article that I'd like to see featured. But it needs heavy editing—you could call it rewriting. Here are some comments on the lead.
- Opening sentence
- I've wikified by starting with the title in bold.
- You may wish to revert to the 'laique = roughly secular' thing in the middle of the list, but it was cluttering what should be a strong, clear opening.
  - What does 'social' mean in this context? (Remove or reword.)
    - This is a quote from the preamble of the Constitution, so any rewording is surely out of question. The precise meaning of such words probably warrants detailed constitutional analysis by constitutional scholars. David.Monniaux 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Provides for', not 'enacts' (parliaments, not constitutions enact).
  - Is my change to 'human rights' correct?
- Appointment of PM—this sentence was a mess. How about: 'The President's choice for Prime Minister must be approved by the French National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament; in practice, the Prime Minister is drawn from the majority party in that house.'
- Then: 'The government includes various bodies checking against possible abuses of power and independent agencies.'
  - Let's be careful to distinguish 'government' (that of a particular President/PM) from the constitutional framework in which governments function. Is there appropriate terminology to do this throughout?
  - Do you mean '... that check abuses of power by the government and its independent agencies.'? What are these 'independent agencies? You've said twice that the judiciary is 'independent', so the reader will wonder whether the statement refers to it.
  - I wonder whether a bullet-pointed list of the basic structure—or even a diagram—is required at the top, so that we're not confused when you first refer to the components.
- And: 'However, the various legal subdivisions—the régions, départements and communes—have various attributions, and the national government is prohibited from intruding into their normal legal operations.'
  - I've inserted the m dashes, which make sentences with lots of commas a little clearer and easier to read.
  - Are these entities equivalent to 'local goverment'?
  - Why name these categories here if you don't distinguish between them? (Better to use a generic term here, and explain in detail later.) What are 'attributions' in this context? (Powers and responsibilities?)
  - 'Various' appears twice in this sentence.

Do I have time to go through the whole article like this? Tony 03:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'social'—presumably you've translated it, so you have a degree of license to get across the intended meaning in English. As it stands, social is vague and ambiguous, and should be removed if the courts need to interpret the word. Here, some readers will take it as 'socialist'; others might think it means 'democratic'. So it can't stand as is. (That's unwise drafting, in my view.) Tony 13:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The word social is used in the official English translation. It would be unfair to try and change this. Social means here that the state is responsible for some welfare system but interpreting further would be original research. I have changed the head (and cited the source) such that it comes clearer. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot vote because I have not read everything. The article is much too long and should boil down to something more reasonable like 30-35 KB. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object poor flow - needs longer and less paragraphs. Could use another run through peer review probably. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]