Talk:50 euro note

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 50 euro note has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatism-related articles 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European Union (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

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.-- KeithbobTalk 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the 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. Yes check.svg 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. Yes check.svg 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. Yes check.svg 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. Yes check.svg 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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. 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 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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images copyright status OK
6b. images 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.Yes check.svg 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.-- KeithbobTalk 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." Yes check.svg 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. Yes check.svg Done
  • The word "euro" is wikilinked twice in the lead (MOS says we wikilink just the first time it appears in the article) Yes check.svg 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." Yes check.svg Done

The changes in the Design section look good. We are almost there. Cheers! -- KeithbobTalk 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[edit]

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[edit]

Yes check.svg DonePlarem (User talk) 12:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)