Wikipedia:Peer review/Ordonnance (French constitutional law)/archive1

Ordonnance (French constitutional law)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know

whether it is intelligible by non-French readers (maybe restricting oneself to people who are familiar with Law or government procedures in general),
whether there are things that should be improved, especially compared to the Manual of Style and other formal criteria.

Thanks, David.Monniaux (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I found it intelligible. I do read French, though, and I am familiar with both law and government procedures.
In doing my background research for this review, I read fr:Ordonnance en droit constitutionnel français on the French Wikipedia. Can I suggest that you expand this article with some material translated from that one? The French article's structure also has useful aspects. (If you translate material from the French Wikipedia, please add {{translated|fr|Ordonnance en droit constitutionnel français}} to the article's talk page—please make sure it's the talk page not the article itself—in order to comply with Wikipedia's copyright licencing rules.)
Please do feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you'd like me to look at it again after any edits you make.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I don't read French, but these sound like good suggestions. I had read the article already and here are some suggestions for improvement based mostly on the MOS.

The article needs more references - for example both the Motivations and Vocabulary notes sections have no references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
While there is a choice of the kind of references used, the MOS says to pick one and stick with it - so The use of ordonnances for controversial laws is generally criticized by the opposition as anti-democratic, and demeaning to Parliament (Guillaume, 2005), in much the same way as the use of article 49-3 to force a bill to be voted.[10] needs to be fixed, for example
The article has a large number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should either be combined with others or expanded to improve the flow of the article.
The Previous usages section might work better as a History section (suitably expanded) and might also work better earlier in the article (explain how the practice came to be, then describe how it is used today)
Could images be added? Perhaps photos of the government building(s) in Paris where these are issued / made (not sure of the verb)?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]