Talk:Sheep farming in Ukraine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Sheep farming in Ukraine was a Agriculture, food and drink good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 14, 2026. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that sheep farming in Ukraine declined from 6.4 million sheep in 1938 to about 0.7 million in the early 21st century? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sheep farming in Ukraine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TheGreatEditor024 (talk · contribs) 07:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I'll take this article for review. Please consider reviewing another editor's nomination at WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- General comments
- Article is neutral, stable, and focused. Media are relevant, appropriately captioned, and suitably licensed.
- The lead is too short, and does not cover all aspects of the article (see MOS:LEADREL).
- Many sourcing issues:
- This source and this one are a travel guide's personal blog, and are not reliable.
- What is the origin of this PDF?
- Wordpress-powered blogs such as this are not reliable.
- This source looks like a churnalist outlet.
- This source is hosted by Docslib, not published by them. The paper's authors and other metadata should be cited appropriately.
- The following sources should have adequate attribution to the authors in the citation: , ,
- I also have significant concerns about broadness. The article is only 600 words long. While this is not FAC and articles should not have to be comprehensive, 600 words is only twice as long as a long stub. Areas I don't think are discussed enough include:
- Wool and milk production, which is skimmed over
- The history period is very thin. Details on traditional herding practices or operations are nearly absent. The Soviet period is only lightly touched on. One would think that the Russian invasion would have had a major impact on the industry, but the article doesn't mention it.
- The breeds need to be discussed in more detail—we have more details on minor breeds than what the article calls "the most important native breeds". Looking for their origins, comparative advantages and weaknesses, etc.
I'm regrettably going to have to quickfail this nomination because of the substandard sourcing quality and the lack of broadness, which I don't think could be successfully addressed within the bounds of a GA review. If you feel the article is ready to be renominated, please feel free to ping me and I'll try to have another look at it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.