Talk:100 euro note

	100 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 October 24, 2011 Good article nominee Listed August 21, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 20 euro note was copied or moved into 100 euro note with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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:

Numismatics Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European Union Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:100 euro note/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 20:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

After a couple of thoughts... I think I should really fail this article... Do you agree? – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Fixed, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We did fixed it --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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):

   See comments for point a  Done, the article passes MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments for point a  Done, The sources are reliable, and everything is referenced, therefore no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comment number 7  Done, the article does not have any unneccessary text.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article is not biased, in any way.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The page is stable.

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):

   Images check out. Captions are fine, no other options available.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Well done on improving this article to the GA Standards! Now, just a question in the comments section... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 17:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The ten euro note shows the Baroque and Rococo style. Please fix this.
2. The infobox does not show all the security features. There are 13 of them. Done--♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. The 'History' section would need a bit more... Something like:

   Legally, both the European Central Bank and the central banks of the eurozone countries have the right to issue the 7 different euro banknotes.

   And, a bit about how it is in practise.

4. and with a green colour scheme. to something like and has a green colour scheme.
5. note shows the Baroque / Rococo style Please remove the spaces before and after the /.
6. PLEASE reread over the paragraph 'Tracking'. It is in dire need of good grammar.
7. 'Security features'. Please explain them in more detail, like in 10 euro note or 50 euro note.
8. "The printer code is located to the right of the 9 o'clock star.[9]"

   Please find a ref that says something about the printer code, or please remove it.

9. The first reference could be replaced. You could change European Union to Eurozone and Institutions. Done
10. The 'Security Features' reference in the infobox says nothing about the scurity features. Please fix that.  Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PASS – — Congrats on bringing the

Good work Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on security features appears to be a copied and/or closely paraphrased from the European Central Bank who haven't released the content in a compatible license. I haven't checked the other sections yet, but I will either do so soon or list it for copyvio check. —SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Content has also been copied from this version of the 20 euro note article. Attribution trail needs to be added. —SpacemanSpiff 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Content has also been copied from this version of the Euro banknotes article. Attribution trail needs to be added. —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some parts of the general content is copied from other articles and/or external sites, I'm unable to figure out exactly.
• I'm blanking the copyvio content now, will add the attribution trail and possibly add some replacement content for what I remove, over the next couple of days. —SpacemanSpiff 18:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I am just checking with the copyright issues, but I am having some problems with attribution. Since the content was not copied from 20 euro note in one edit, I have added the diff of the first edit in which I copied the text. As of Euro banknotes, I haven't copied text from it, maybe text from there was copied to 20 euro note. I need one day more to correct all the issues. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The text that you added doesn't read well at all, it doesn't follow the references in meaning and requires a significant copyedit. What about any other issues related to copyvios or attribution? —SpacemanSpiff 03:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there is an attribution problem now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:100 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.  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 #9 doesn't go anywhere.  Done

   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: - Article has been kept.

Please extend the 'on hold' time by 12-24hrs. as I just found out about this today. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 14:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I'm done! – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion, I should have elaborated. I meant I put it on hold for 24 hours and I would comeback in 24 hours and assess what was done. But anyways it has been kept! Obtund^Talk 22:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 100 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607234444/http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/admdirect/1999/089%20Final%20%20ADE%201999-02.htm to http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/admdirect/1999/089%20Final%20%20ADE%201999-02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911232930/http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/focuson/focuson9120_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/focuson/focuson9120_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234241/http://www.dnb.nl/dnb/home?lang=en&id=tcm%3A47-150696-64 to http://www.dnb.nl/dnb/home?lang=en&id=tcm%3A47-150696-64
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.eurobilltracker.com/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• 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) 04:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]