What would you suggest as an improvement? Some people have proposed a discussion of taxation, but I think that this would deserve another article (it's a complex topic). I'd like this article to make it to FA status.

• seriously lacking in references; try to make it clear, for each section, where the information has come from. Consider using footnotes or invisible references as an effective way to format this information Mozzerati 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of "related links" sections pointing to appropriate legal texts. Do you suggest that they should be noted "references"?
  • Added a reference section.

• At last, a reasonably clear, comprehensive account of the highest structures of French administration. Ask most French people, and you realise that they have a very fuzzy knowledge of it all.
  • The text needs a thorough copy edit before nomination as a FAC, although it's not too bad.
    • {{sofixit}} :-)
  • A few weaknesses in logic (which should be a strength for matters French!); e.g., why bring in the run-off voting system when making the point that direct election bestows great legitimacy on the President? It's direct election, not the mechanics of declaring a majority or winning vote, that make it legitimate, surely.
  • No. The runoff voting system forces people to get a majority of the votes (either at the first round or the second round). Thus, they can claim to have been elected by a majority in all cases. (If the candidate having the most votes won at the first round, candidates would be elected by a plurality of votes, say 20%, and it could least to nasty situations like two left wing candidates getting 30 + 30 and a right-winger getting 40, and the right-winger getting elected. The elected right-winger would then lack legitimity, since 60% of the people, presumably, would have preferred at least some kind of left-winger.) In any case, the argument is regularly cited when discussing the system. David.Monniaux 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images? One of the current or or a former President? The building and/or interior of the National Assembly?

Good idea. I have imported various images. David.Monniaux 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Given the status of the French system, along with the British system, as a parent for a number of other systems, including that of the US, you might consider either a section comparing the division of powers between the branches in these systems, or even a table doing the same thing. Many readers will engage more with the topic if they see a clearly set out comparison with their own system.Might be a lot of trouble though, so it's only a suggestion. Tony 01:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel quite up to doing such a comparison work, because it would be fraught with inaccuracies concerning systems I'm not 100% familiar with. I could write some diagram about checks and balances of the French system. David.Monniaux 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know before you nominate it and I'll run through it (unless I'm work-stressed at the time). Tony 08:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you were getting at with the run-off thing, but most readers won't get it. Either make direct election of the president the point (as opposed to election by the parliament), or explain further what a 'run off' is and why you've chosen it to make your point. (comprising, if necessary, a second election ?two weeks after the first to generate a 50%+ vote for whoever becomes the president). Perhaps my idea of a table was impractical; some mention of the influence of the system on others would be welcome. Tony 00:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]