Talk:Law 2013-404

Number of the bill
In the French Parliamant, a bill can have different numbers: this one was Bill 344 when introduced in the National Assembly, Bill 349 when discussed in the Senate and then Bill 920 for the second reading in the National Assembly. It should be referred by its name or the date of its promulgation, as actually the case for official litterature in France. --Superbenjamin (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Coming into force
On which day did the law come into force ? Anyway, I agree that in the grand scheme of things, this does not matter much, and could very well qualify as nitpicking.Cochonfou (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The law was promulgated by the President on May 17th.
 * It was published to the Journal Officiel on May 18th.
 * So as far as I know, it should have come into force on the following day, on May 19th. See for instance this reference, translated here.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Law 2013-404. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120808081325/http://www.tetu.com/actualites/france/mariage-et-adoption-pour-tous-les-couples-au-premier-semestre-2013-21843 to http://www.tetu.com/actualites/france/mariage-et-adoption-pour-tous-les-couples-au-premier-semestre-2013-21843
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323080948/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/french-senate-law-commission-backs-gay-marriage-equality200313 to http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/french-senate-law-commission-backs-gay-marriage-equality200313
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130615213549/http://www.wisn.com/news/national/French-lawmakers-approve-same-sex-marriage/-/9373390/19856244/-/b9p2w2/-/index.html to http://www.wisn.com/news/national/French-lawmakers-approve-same-sex-marriage/-/9373390/19856244/-/b9p2w2/-/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512202852/http://www.ump-senat.fr/IMG/pdf/saisine_conseil_constitutionnel_mariage_pour_tous.pdf to http://www.ump-senat.fr/IMG/pdf/saisine_conseil_constitutionnel_mariage_pour_tous.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/-les-associations-co-organisatrices-5-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127135455/http://lci.tf1.fr/people/nrj-music-awards-2013-les-5-moments-insolites-7795078.html to http://lci.tf1.fr/people/nrj-music-awards-2013-les-5-moments-insolites-7795078.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing for B-Class assessment
I will assess this article for the Wikiproject LGBT studies.

The article must meet the six B-Class criteria:
 * The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of tags and citation templates such as is optional.

The citations are there, but are in need of maintenance. The bare links should be expanded to complete references. But otherwise: passed


 * The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

The result of the vote in the Senate could provide more detail (similar to the results in the National Assembly). Otherwise it contains all wanted information. passed


 * The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

I don't see any flaws there. It follows the layout guideline and the sections in the body and their order make perfect sense. passed


 * The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

There are minor flaws (like the use of present tense, where the past tense should be used), but there are no real problems. passed


 * The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

It's there in a reasonable amount. passed


 * The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Technical terms in use link to their own articles or are shortly explained in the text body. No problems. passed

Alltogether I can assess the article as B-Class Gehenna1510 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)