Talk:Law 2013-404

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Number of the bill[edit]

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)[reply]

Coming into force[edit]

On which day did the law come into force ?

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.

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Reviewing for B-Class assessment[edit]

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 <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} 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)[reply]