Talk:Sheep farming in Ukraine

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that sheep farming in Ukraine declined from 6.4 million sheep in 1938 to about 0.7 million after 1991?

• Source:

• Reviewed:

Created by TheGreatEditor024 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC).

• Hook is interesting and cited, article is new and long enough, with no obvious copyvio issues and only 1 citation needed tag in the "Products" section (which should be fixed if possible). I will approve the hook. R. M. Holda - (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Robert Motecinos Holda: and @TheGreatEditor024:, the CIA reading room reference that points to "6.4 million sheep" does not seem to work. Can you fix that with an archived link or find another reference? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  • @Reconrabbit: Here it is (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79-01093a000300110002-2, Page 17 [section 5;Sheep and goats], a quote would be "the Ukraine (region III) had 6.4 million (sheep) (the section talks about the number of sheep in distinct soviet regions in 1938)) R. M. Holda - (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quote, that makes sense. I don't know why the link doesn't work for me, it just goes to https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Pulled from main page; adding since there are significant issues with sourcing (see [1] and [2]. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Sourcing issues have mostly been resolved (unreliable sources mentioned in the recent GA review were replaced), so i ask for an additional review.R. M. Holda - (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough and long enough (ignoring the moments this already spent on the main page). Copyvio tool shows some close paraphrasing concerns. Given the question of source quality has come up before, I'm also not sure what makes www.carpatho-rusyn.org and www.ukrfolk.kiev.ua reliable. Article needs some work.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I removed the 2 unreliable sources. Secondly, I don't know how the paraphrasing has took place as I was really careful while preparing the article.TheGreatEditor024 (talk), 31 May 2026

References

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

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   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: [3], [4], [5]
• 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.

Changes

• Removed the PDF.

• Corrected the Docslib issue.

• Removed the churnalist outlet.

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Removed the blogs. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)