Talk:50 euro note

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:50 euro note/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keithbob (talk · contribs) 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am today beginning the review process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 27 October 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.	History section-- The euro was "set up"--What does that mean? Was it founded? conceived? printed? please clarify this in the article.  Done Security features section--needs to be rewritten as Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a "how to" magazine. So the sections to be re-written (see example below) Current text: Colour changing ink,[1] tilt the banknote and you should see the value numeral on the back change colour from purple to olive green or brown. Should be rewritten something like this: Colour changing used on the numeral located on the back of the note, that appears to change color from purple to brown, when the note is tilted.  Done There were other minor prose problems but I corrected them myself. :-)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs some work. The first two sentences are OK. Everything after the first two sentences needs to be moved into a new section AFTER the lead called "Background". Then the lead needs to be expanded so that it includes a comprehensive summary (not details) of the entire article.  Done Also when you write the lead leave out the citations as leads do not normally use citations since the lead is a summary of cited text in the body of the article. There are exceptions to this guideline but that is the general rule.  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.	References are uniform and neatly laid out with all relevant information.
	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).	Good sources
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Broad coverage
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focus of the article is good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral in tone.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable, no edit warring.
	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.	Images copyright status OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Very nice quality illustrations with suitable captions. However the image of Presidents signature is too big and falls outside the boundaries of the section. It either needs to be reduced in size or moved to a different section. Done
	7. Overall assessment.

Overall a very nicely written, well sourced article with wonderful illustrations. After the above changes are made I would be happy to give it GA status.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a speedy response and edits to the article. There are still a few more items:

• • Lead:
• This exact sentence appears twice in the lead "The fifty euro note is the fourth smallest note measuring 140x77mm with an orange colour scheme."  Done
• We shouldn't have info about the founding of the euro or about the ten euro note in the lead. This may be related info for the Background section but the purpose of the lead is to define the topic and summarize the main points of the article per WP:LEAD.  Done
• The word "euro" is wikilinked twice in the lead (MOS says we wikilink just the first time it appears in the article)  Done
  • History:
• I don't see why we need a subsection called "Changes" for two sentences of text. Changes in design are part of its History. WP:LAYOUT says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading"
• Unless this is an historical event....consider moving this sentence out of the History section and into the Background section: "Both the European Central Bank and the central banks of the eurozone countries have the legal right to issue the 7 different euro banknotes. However, the national central banks of the zone physically issue and withdraw euro banknotes. The European Central Bank does not have a cash office and is not involved in any cash operations."  Done

The changes in the Design section look good. We are almost there. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. And 4 days! I think that is a personal record on GA Improvements! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:50 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 #10 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 50 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911232930/http://ec.europa.eu:80/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:47-150696-64 to http://www.dnb.nl/dnb/home?lang=en&id=tcm:47-150696-64

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) 05:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)