Talk:50 euro note/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Plarem in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
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. |
| |
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."DoneWe 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.DoneThe 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)