![]() | 5 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: Oddbodz ( talk · contribs) 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC) This is a very good article. It is quite short but is still broad and accurate in its coverage. All key points have citations and the article is nutral. There are some good images all though a few more wouldn't hurt. The article meets all the Good Article and I am happy to award it Good Article status.
— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 02:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Per 1, I must cancel that. When I wrote that I meant that when your edit is challenged, consult the talk page, as
User:Jim Sweeney had 2 challenged edits and did not consult the talk page.
Per 2,
WP:CONSENSUS is higher up than
WP:BEBOLD, as WP:CONSENSUS is a Project-wide principle, and WP:BEBOLD is an editing guideline, see this:
Per 3, you are not getting CONSENSUS And this diagram. I have challenged those edits.
Per 4, I do not know how I got a GA out of this article without a proper review. Reassess it if you want.
– Plarem (
User
talk
contribs) 14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
So mainly what was to be done on 100 euro note, am I right? – Plarem ( User talk) 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Done – Plarem (
User
talk) 12:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 5 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 5 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: Oddbodz ( talk · contribs) 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC) This is a very good article. It is quite short but is still broad and accurate in its coverage. All key points have citations and the article is nutral. There are some good images all though a few more wouldn't hurt. The article meets all the Good Article and I am happy to award it Good Article status.
— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 02:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Per 1, I must cancel that. When I wrote that I meant that when your edit is challenged, consult the talk page, as
User:Jim Sweeney had 2 challenged edits and did not consult the talk page.
Per 2,
WP:CONSENSUS is higher up than
WP:BEBOLD, as WP:CONSENSUS is a Project-wide principle, and WP:BEBOLD is an editing guideline, see this:
Per 3, you are not getting CONSENSUS And this diagram. I have challenged those edits.
Per 4, I do not know how I got a GA out of this article without a proper review. Reassess it if you want.
– Plarem (
User
talk
contribs) 14:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
So mainly what was to be done on 100 euro note, am I right? – Plarem ( User talk) 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Done – Plarem (
User
talk) 12:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 5 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)