Talk:200 euro note

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:200 euro note/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 14:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Section 4 needs a copy edit.  Done The whole "Enviromental impact" section is a copyvio of ref.no.14. Please fix it ASAP.  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"two hundred euro note (€200)" should be changed to "two hundred euro note (€200)".  Done I have done some changes as per WP:DASH, hope that is fine. YThat is fine. Why the legal information is under the "History" section?  Done Put "Tracking" under "Enviromental impact".  Done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Ref no. 9 and 10 are same. Done And 'CTUOO1' means 'Can't think up of one 1'.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"There has so far only been one ...... similar to the current one is to be issued from 2011.", the reference provided do not support this statement.  Done "The initial issue of notes bears the signature of ...... Jean-Claude Trichet, whose signature appears on subsequent issues.", this statement is also not supported by the reference given.  Done
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The environmental impact of the note has to be added; you can use this as an example.  Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	#"Environmental impact" section do not have a NPOV. Please fix that. Examples are: As an environment-friendly institution tries very hard to make a ... save people's health Euro notes are safe to use  Done, I think...
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are some more pictures here which are suitable for the article.  Done Just to comment on that for future reference. Pictures are NOT a GA requirement, but if you give me some, then sheesh, why not?
	7. Overall assessment.	I will wait for 7 days for the above issues to be solved. Thanks. :) Passed. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:200 euro note/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "The changeover period during which the former currencies' notes and coins were exchanged for those of the euro lasted about two months, until 28 February 2002." should include the start date which was 1 January 2002  Done

   "Their aim is to record is to ascertain details about its spread and to generate statistics and rankings for various notes." needs to be reworked.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference #9 is a dead link. Has been dead since 2012-07-01.  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comment

 Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 12:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 200 euro note. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607234444/http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/admdirect/1999/089%20Final%20%20ADE%201999-02.htm to http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/admdirect/1999/089%20Final%20%20ADE%201999-02.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.eurobilltracker.com/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 200 euro note. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911232930/http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/focuson/focuson9120_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/focuson/focuson9120_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234241/http://www.dnb.nl/dnb/home?lang=en&id=tcm%3A47-150696-64 to http://www.dnb.nl/dnb/home?lang=en&id=tcm%3A47-150696-64
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.eurobilltracker.com/about/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

2009, signature

On the front side (not the side with the number), in the upper area (below "BCE ECB EZB EKT EKP") there is some kind of signature which looks be written after printing, but it is on our specimens. But the one I've got , has a different signature. My guess is that it's a "new" note (year 2018 or 2019). Number is x07308897059 - if that's to anyone's help. The note wasn't exchanged - I had coins and smaller notes to a little larger value and asked at a local exchange if we could swap. He didn't accept cents, but coins down to 1 Euro. He seemed just a bit to happy, I thought afterwards. Euro (stupidly) isn't the currency of Sweden, where I live. All info on the signature would be much appreciated Boeing720 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Security features (Europa series)

The subsection Security features (Europa series) is empty. Why? It can't have been empty when this article was promoted to Good Article. Lennart97 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)