![]() | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
Done – Plarem (
User
talk)
12:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
Done – Plarem (
User
talk)
12:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)