This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. France Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / French / Early Modern / Napoleonic era This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	French Revolution was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 17, 2008 WikiProject peer review Collaborated October 22, 2008 WikiProject peer review Collaborated June 14, 2013 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 20, 2007. Current status: Former good article nominee

Change “Over 72,00 slaves were still in revolt, mostly in the north.” to “Over 72,000 slaves were still in revolt, mostly in the north.”

There is a missing “0” in the section, specifically in citation 196, under “Slavery and the colonies”. 170.244.198.174 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PianoDan (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the diffs from @Goszei to @Aemilius Adolphin interesting. In particulare the phrase The Assembly largely represented the bourgeoisie, who hoped to usher in a property-owning democracy. is very interesting. It is a shame that the body doesn't develop this adequatelly, since this have been such a major topic over the centuries. From the requirement to get into the National Assembly, to the actual repartitions of professions on it, to how the property penalties contributed to the end of Robespierre etc

I don't have the time to do the work right now on the body, but I'll open this discussion just in case I will be able to later, or someone else watching the page might want to chip in. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some may argue that the specific phrasing of a "bourgeois revolution" is a Marxist one since he made it famous, but I don't think that stating the revolution was the point in France where the middle classes (the bourgeoisie) gained supremacy over the nobility and ended feudalism is at all historically controversial. Alexis de Tocqueville and others argued for the same view in The Old Regime and the Revolution. The historiography section of this article is rather muddled and missing these major viewpoints, and could use improvement before we add it to the lead. — Goszei (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, needs development in body first and then adding to lead. Sadly I can't help directly since I still have to find the time to edit the Saint-Just page...

Different views are not an issue, the lead is quite short they can all find their spot eventually. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that all the recent scholarship I have read tends to undermine the received idea that there was a unified middle class and shows that the term "bourgeoisie" is misleading. From memory, the research shows that most members of the third estate were lawyers, journalist and state bureaucrats. Only about 6% were merchants or businessmen. I can chase up the sources again. As for "who hoped to usher in a property-owning democracy" I think this is the sort of simple explanation we need to avoid. Too often, we are tempted to simplify history into an easy to digest story and introduce phrases which mean nothing. What is a property-owning democracy and who exactly used that phrase at the time? Very few of the third estate wanted a "democracy" as we envisage it: where all adult males and females have the right to stand for and vote for an assembly with full leglative power. From what I have read it seems that when the old regime collapsed they found that power was suddenly thrust into their hands and they didn't know exactly what they wanted and what they should do with it. And the rest is history. I would also suggest that we don't need much more detail in this article because it is already too long. Detail is for the sub articles. But by all means we should play around with the wording and come up with something which is concise and accurate without spinning simple narratives which aren't supported by the bulk of modern scholarship. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think Goszei is doing a good job in improving the leads of several articles. Sometimes I push back on particular things,sometimes other editors push back more, but generally I think Goszei is good at stimulating other editors into retinking long-established leads. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that bourgeoisie is an umbrella term that can be avoided, something like your description of the composition of the national assembly can find a spot on the lead. Same goes for the goals, "property-owning democracy" is probably misleading in two ways, but it can be expanded to something that makes more sense and is able to describe what where the new economy right pushed for at that time. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change slaves to enslaved people. AlexanderRayne (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Remsense ‥ 论 21:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a deliberate choice or an oversight. It is not clear what the difference between the national assembly, Constituent assembly and legislative assembly, Perhaps this is too general but given that this is the main article I think it is is somewhat important to at least mention this fact. Chefs-kiss (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have added the date the National Constituent Assembly was created to the section Creating a constitution. The creation of the Legislative Assembly is discussed in the section Varennes and after. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all

I have corrected some repetitions and incorrect information that has crept into the lead. For a start, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article so there is no need to say twice that the revolution ended with the coup of 18 Brumaire and the establishment of the consulate with Napoleon as first consul. Once is enough. Second, the Declaration of the Rights of Man was not based on the principles of Liberty, egalite and fraternité. That slogan was first enunciated years later. Also the consulate did not end the Republic; the Consulate was a Republican government and France was still a Republic up to 1807. The lead isn't perfect by any means but I think we should discuss proposed changes on Talk and try to gain consensus for them so that obvious errors don't creep in. Most people only read the lead so it should be a showcase of accuracy and neutrality. I am also concerned that the body of the article has too much editorialising and sweeping generalisations based on scholarship from the 1960s and 1980s. I will try to update some of it it with more recent scholarship over the coming weeks and would welcome the assistasnce of other editors in doing so.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]