|This user is a student editor in Northeastern_University/Online_Communities_(2023-1-Spring) .|
I moved your draft back to your sandbox because I felt it wasn't ready for mainspace yet.
- Three of your references - 10, 22 and 23 in the current version - are blank. You need to fix them. You also shouldn't use references in section headers. The need to go after the text they support, not before.
- Your lead doesn't provide enough information about the law and the content of the article. For example, it says nothing about when the law was passed, and what it says is vague. A lead section should very information-dense, since it's likely to be the only part of the article most readers ever see.
- You need to be specific about times. In the "History" section you say
several years ago...Not only should facts like this be specific, you also shouldn't use relative time periods in Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia articles aren't dated, "several years ago" might mean something very different to a reader in 20 years, and it's likely that they won't have any indication as to when this information was added.
- Most of the first paragraph of the "History" section is a quote. For copyright reasons, you need to keep quotes to a minimum in Wikipedia, and only use them when the precise wording of the quote significantly improves the reader's understanding. Even then, you should generally aim for no more than 5-8 words in a quote.
The Ecolabel was just the beginning of France's environmental sustainability efforts- you can't make a statement like that and just end there. Cliffhangers don't belong in encyclopaedia articles. In addition, the statement lacks any sources.
- The "Statistics" section links directly to a press release. Press releases aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. You need independent reliable sources. You should also avoid making vague statements like
French law and policy makers worked closely with environmental agencies to create a comprehensive, all-encompassing approach; terms like "closely" and "comprehensive, all-compassing" are not objectively verifiable, In addition, your sources here are primary sources and press releases.
- The "Law" section consists of nothing but:
The law is broken down into six sections as follows. A section shouldn't consist of a sentence fragment, and shouldn't only refer to what follows. There should be enough information in a section that a person who reads one section and nothing else learns something.
- The subsections under the "Laws" section need to be rewritten to summarize what reliable sources say about these sections of the law. And don't rely on a government press release promoting the law as a reliable source, except for basic figures and statements of fact.
- The "Looking ahead" section doesn't include enough information for readers who don't know what these things are. You need to either explain things in the article, or link to other articles that explain what these things are. In general, avoid bullet points; they're great as reminders when everyone know what's being discussed, but paragraphs are much better for readers.
A barnstar for you! :D
|The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar|
|For your impressive work for a new editor. I do seriously hope you stick around! — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)|