Talk:5 euro note

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 27, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 23, 2012	Good article reassessment	Kept

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.

Numismatics Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:5 euro note/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.[reply]

What's so special about this article?

Why should this article induce user:Plarem to request "Please note, to build consensus alongside other editors, please consult the talk page BEFORE making any more edits" in the summary of his [?] most recent edit? Whatever happened to universal Wikipedia policy?
Why does user:Plarem urge us to consult the talk page before editing even though there's nothing here on the talk page to consult about one's editing?
What am I not getting?
P.S. - Excuse me for saying, but (pace user:Oddbodz) I don't find this article so hot

—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:5 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)

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
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Reference #9 is a dead link. Has been dead since 2012-07-01. Done
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comment

So mainly what was to be done on 100 euro note, am I right? – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 12:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes since most of them use the same text and refs. Obtund^Talk 15:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 07:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]