Talk:20 euro note/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 12:56, 9 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. |
| |
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). | see above | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I agree, I must have 'misplaced' the correct citation, which is now Done | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The Obverse and Reverse pictures havo no captions. Please add one in such as "The obverse of the note" and "The reverse of the note.
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
- Please don't delete the comments I made in the table, instead, comment under them and maybe cross them out when they are done? It just makes it easier for anyone who wants to look at the review can see what needs to be done. Puffin Let's talk! 18:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I just noticed reference number 41 "Basic calculator work used here." That is not a reliable reference and should maybe be a note or further reading. Puffin Let's talk! 18:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can the way I got it be a source? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Remove the citation all together. Also, [reference number 8 says that it was retrieved in 2002, but the article was created in 2009. [1] Puffin Let's talk! 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can the way I got it be a source? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I just noticed reference number 41 "Basic calculator work used here." That is not a reliable reference and should maybe be a note or further reading. Puffin Let's talk! 18:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- But every statistic has to be cited... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- An amazing improvement, just one more minor thing needs to be fixed.
Reference number 10 is a dead link, could you possible fix that? It's tagged with the dead link template.Done Puffin Let's talk! 08:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- An amazing improvement, just one more minor thing needs to be fixed.
- But every statistic has to be cited... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Anything else? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It's still a dead link. ^ "The monetary agreement, the road space adapted to micro-economic". Retrieved 6 September 2011.[dead link]Done Puffin Let's talk! 20:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)- Done, something must have undone what I did. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 21:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing it. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 09:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)