Talk:2006 Riga summit

2006 Riga summit 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
May 25, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latvia Top‑importance

	Latvia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles 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.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

Survey edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good article nomination on hold edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Good selection of references however {{fact}} templates have been placed on this article as either the source of the information is unclear, or a direct quote has been made and a reference not placed soon enough after this. Also, I reccomend that templates such as {{cite news}} are used rather than the current format that leaves bare links. This is not necessary for the article to pass and I will help do this whilst the article is on hold

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: I felt the article lacked images but understood not that many free images were availible of the summit. However I have added a fair use image of the logo and also images to illustrate some of the points discussed at the summit. If you wish to replace these or move them about please of course feel free to do so.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since some work has been done I'll give this a few more days, but please show that the steps are being taken soon or I will have to fail the article. Million_Moments (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Successful good article nomination edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply