Talk:Constitutional Council (France)

Oath of office of the President

According to [1], the President of the Republic does not pronounce any oath during the Inauguration Ceremony.

Automated peer review

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]4
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]n 1995,n 1999,n 2005; null
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• (struck: possible "weasel words" that weren't, because context is clear)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Constitutional Council of France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

The article has been on hold for two weeks without any improvements. I am therefore failing it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms is absolutly not official !!!...

I am a french lawyer and historian... (sorry for my bad english).

France have no official "coat of arms" (because in a "République", cannot be existing official "coat of arms"... So this one have nothing else to do on this page !... The "Conseil Constitutionnel" have a logo*, better adding it on the page than that fantasy picture !...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fr/5/59/Logo_Conseil_Constitutionnel_France.gif

Most republic have. And well there's one, it's just not official. Many governement logos are "not official" as far as I remember the rooster is used a symbol but is not defined as "official symbol". Anyway, yes council's logo sounds a better idea.

--Joujyuze (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Confusing Wording

There is a part that reads "French courts when then prohibited from making rulings of a general nature." which means absolutely nothing, instead of whatever it is trying to say. I do not have the knowledge required to fix this typo, so I am hoping someone who does will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.244.156 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NS

Nicolas Sarkozy is life member even if he doesn't want to be (cf talk in french article).

Wow. Oops. No kidding. That's interesting. Why don't you put a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.239.119 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The council doesn't declare a law in contravention of treaties

In 1975, the Constitutional Council said in a decision that " It is [...] not for the Constitutional Council, when a referral is made to it under Article 61 of the Constitution, to consider the consistency of a statute with the provisions of a treaty or an international agreement; "

However, the article says the contrary in the " Powers and tasks " category.

This control is made by administrative (since 1975, 'Jacques Vabre' decision by the Cour de Cassation) and judiciary courts (since 1989, 'Nicolo' decision by the Conseil d'État).

I'm french, sorry for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubber.11 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomiation v2

Hello, this article was extremelly precise, it had literally not one inaccuracy, I did not spot any spelling mistake, it was well organised, it had pictures. Sources, it features IPA etc.....it's fine. Almost everything is explained, complete. It's much more neutral than most of french wikipedia articles about France.

I find it to be more than a "good article". I would say it's one of the best articles I read on wikipedia. And prolly the best english speaking article about anything french, and is better than most of those. It is much better than its french counterpart. And it's all neutral. And does not align with official version, and has an encyclopedic style. It's a beautiful article. It also gives everything and more than what you'd find from any official source at once.

So, it should be reviewed as good article.

Thanks for all.

--Joujyuze (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How are proceedings conducted?

What cases are (not) accepted? Who can argue in front of the Conseil? Etc. Ds77 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)