Talk:Euro banknotes/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 03:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 09:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the photos of the notes not have specimen written on them? A quick google image search brings up a few candidates, is there some reason for this? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 09:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC) N The ECB only allows illustrations of banknotes which do not resemble real notes. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section at Tracking is convoluted and needs major improvements to the English. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Y Think it's done... – Plarem ^{(User talk)}[reply]

References

51 - Police seize 11 million fake euros in Colombia (dead since 18 Aug 2010) Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)}
62 - Greece presses demand for one-euro notes (dead since 13 June 2013) Doing... WP:WAYBACK doesn't do those type of websites... Will do that tomorrow... – Plarem ^{(User talk)} Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 11:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
58 - Europa Series Design - ECB - Our Money (dead since 13 July 2013) Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)}
59 - http://www.new-euro-banknotes.eu/Europa-Series/Europa-Series-Design2 (dead since 13 July 2013) and should not be a naked URL. Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)}

See WP:WAYBACK for possible remedies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review on hold[edit]

User:Retrolord will no longer be reviewing this GAN. Please consider requesting another reviewer. See: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Retrolord. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer[edit]

Retrolord has been indefinitely blocked, but I can finish this one up. I should have my comments posted in the next 3-7 days; sorry for the delay in your review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking over this review... I hope we get this over and done with as quickly as possible, because I would like to have my Good Topic as soon as possible, but there is no rush. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some tweaks for grammar and readability as I've gone along; please feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Agree
The lead is five paragraphs, whereas WP:LEAD allows a maximum of four. Can some of the shorter ones simply be combined? Done
The "better source needed" tag from Jan '13 needs to be addressed. ~~Doing...~~ Done
This may just be a format that I'm not familiar with, but why write "113.50 million" instead of "113.5 million"? Y Updated
" slowly expanded behind the rest of the EU" -- what does "behind" mean here? Y I'm not so sure, but I changed it in the History section as well. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"its political authority" -- is "its" here "the Euro's"? This might be clarified. Done
I broke up a large paragraph that was all one sentence; I think it's more readable this way. Let me know if that's all right with you.[1] -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Agree It was very unreadable, thanks for that. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" Cyprus and Malta were not shown, because they were not in the European Union in 2002, when the banknotes were issued, even though they joined the Eurozone in 2008. Cyprus was not depicted on the banknotes because the map did not stretch that far east, and Malta because it was too small to be depicted, the minimum size for depiction being 400 km2." -- this confuses me. First the text says that C & M weren't shown because they weren't EU members; then it gives a different reason. Which is correct? Y Both are correct. I combined them into one sentence. Hope that's OK. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the ECB president's signature is repeated in two sections; one of these should be cut. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
- This actually still needs attention; the two sections I'm looking at are
  - - - The first notes have the signature of Wim Duisenberg, who was the first president of the European Central Bank. Duisenberg was replaced by Jean-Claude Trichet in 2003. The banknotes printed from 2003 to 2012 use Trichet's signature.[36] On 1 November 2011, Mario Draghi assumed the presidency of the ECB,[37] and banknotes bearing his signature appeared in circulation in March 2012.
- and
  - - - The euro banknotes have to bear the signature of the president of the European Central Bank.[6] Banknotes printed after March 2012 bear the signature of the current ECB President, Mario Draghi.[6] Notes printed after November 2003 to March 2012 show Jean Claude Trichet's signature,[6] replacing that of the first president, Wim Duisenberg,[6] who was the president of the European Central Bank when the first euro banknotes and coins were issued.[6]
- This seems like unneeded repetition, especially since they're only two paragraphs apart. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Y Now it's done I edited another paragraph which talks about the ECB President's signature... – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 14:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments; thanks for all your work on these points so far.

"the final designs still bear close similarities to their specific prototypes and thus are not truly generic" -- the source doesn't seem to support this statement; it actually emphasizes the opposite, suggesting that he was successful in making them generic. ("But Mr. Kalina, guided by the need to stress a European identity over any national loyalties, painstakingly eradicated all recognizable vestiges of each image, pixel by pixel.") This seems to be original research. Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)}
- I've shortened this somewhat redundant sentence; if you object, just let me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" it is thought that the euro notes have at least thirty different security features" -- citation? Done It was like that when I begun work on the article. Now I said 11, because that's how many are listed. – Plarem ^{(User talk)}
Many of the citations seem to need clean-up; it's not correct to list "ECB" as both the "work" and "publisher". Done
- Not sure Question: Will I just remove the work altogether and expand the publisher to 'European Central Bank'? – Plarem ^{(User talk)}
  - Yep, that'd be perfect. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
"Watermarks[39] –" -- why is it necessary to cite the word "Watermarks" here? Y It isn't necessary... – Plarem ^{(User talk)}
"There are possibly three watermarks on the euro notes." -- is there a source for this? Also, if there are standard, digital, infrared, and ultraviolet watermarks on the notes, isn't that four? Y Think it's done... – Plarem ^{(User talk)}

I'd still like a source here that says specifically that there are four watermarks, rather than assembling this information piecemeal, which seems a bit WP:OR. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table for Manchester code has been tagged as dubious since March; this needs to be resolved for the article to pass. Is there a source for this information? Y Can you check it? I put in a reference. The user that marked it dubious didn't answer back when I told him to change it.///// Hi, I don't know exactly where to post, but just reading the wikipedia manchester code and differential manchester encoding page It's easy to understand that the the barcode reading method is wrong, as manchester code says bottomUp represents 0 and a upBottom represents 1, whith the transition in the middle of the period, so in every period there is a transition which is the same as a thin black bar is 1 and a thick black bar is 0. So 20= 1111, 5= 001, 50= 00111, 10=1100, and this is looking at the note from behind, looking left to right*///// – Plarem ^{(User talk)}
I couldn't confirm the information about the EURion constellation or the bar codes at the given source. Am I overlooking it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are the figures for the Statistics section calculated? To take the 10-euro note as an example, 2,170,679,800 x 10 doesn't equal 21,706,797,700. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) N These are taken from the ECB website. The place where I took it from is in the reference. – Plarem ^{(User talk)}[reply]
Oberthur needs disambiguation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Europa Series" -- this section needs updating; if these notes are already out, there's no need for this to be in future tense. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The new notes will also reflect the expansion of the European Union; the current issues do not include the recent members Cyprus and Malta (Cyprus is off the map to the east and Malta was too small to be depicted.[6])." -- seems to be a repetition of information already in the article. Also, is it clear enough to still call the prior banknotes "the current issues" when the new ones are also in circulation? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There has been a rapid growth in the counterfeiting of euro banknotes since the launch of the currency in 2002." -- the source for this statement actually seems to show a decline over the last few years--am I reading this wrong? Done – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"currently" should be rewritten per WP:REALTIME

Closing review[edit]

There's a lot of good information here, and this one is clearly on its way to being a Good Article; I really appreciate all of your work on it. At the same time, I think this may have been a bit of an early nomination. Several indicators (longstanding but unaddressed cleanup tags, repetition between sections, and sections needing updating to the present date) suggest to me that this one hasn't had a good top-to-bottom readthrough since at least January; I'm also concerned that we've already had to change several pieces of factual information as we go (number of security features, number of watermarks, whether or not the bridges on the bills are generic). The level of double-checking and attention that this one needs seems to me to exceed what we can do in a reasonable review.

For these reasons, I'm closing this review for now with the recommendation that you renominate this one when it's more ready--updated, proofread, and double-checked for accuracy. The suggestions above should give you a starting point. Thanks again for all your work on these--I hope you make it to your Good Topic soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]