Talk:2006 Riga summit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
May 25, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Survey[edit]

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)


Good article nomination on hold[edit]

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)

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)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

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)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006 Riga summit. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)