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

Numismatics GA‑class 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 articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:European Union

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.

Template:Maintained

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]