# Talk:Domestic sheep reproduction

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
There was an issue with the title not being in bold writing in the lead, but I've been bold, and made a minor adjustment to fix it. Other than that, the writing is good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This article meets all good article criteria. It is reasonably well written, and there are issues other than the lead sentence, which I've fixed. I'm happy to say that this article passes GA. Thank you for your work in improving this article to good article status. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 18:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that this is not the way that sheep breeders handle the large mobs in the S Hemisphere. My district alone runs over 900,000 sheep and the thought of the breeders trotting out with their bottles of iodine, waiting for lambs to stabilize etc has the mind boggling. As for tupping when I last looked most of the Googles turned up Tupperware etc. and I could go on further. Cgoodwin (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Googles"? Tupping is a term used primarily in the British Isles, but since it's only one of a few specialized terms for mating, we include it. If you feel the article needs diversity, then expand it with some sourced material. But a Good Article class work filled with citations to reliable sources requires that you provide a few sources of your own to contradict it. Your personal experience has zero bearing on the article. Steven Walling (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly I don't know where to begin and I guess that many of my comments would be wiped as per usual. I have put in OZ URLs to give an idea of the differences with OZ treatments though. We do not have shepherds (they all died out before 1900), Rutting (belongs goats and deer), do not use blindfolds, bleach or vinegar to dissuade charges, mating harness is generally a no no and iodine is not used because of wool contamination, lambing jugs are not known here, lambs are tailed when several weeks old instead of stabilized. The only breeding that vaguely resembles most of that in the article woudl be in SMALL studs. I can supply refs to any of the above. Suggestions welcome!Cgoodwin (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Asexuality has been documented in at least 2% of Rams. Should that be mentioned in the article? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the text, but there is no link to it.  Does anything exist about it on wikipedia? Brionyvet (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Domestic sheep reproduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721124622/http://www.ifj.ie/2005/0521/farmmanagement/sheep/feature.shtml to http://www.ifj.ie/2005/0521/farmmanagement/sheep/feature.shtml
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081014140026/http://www.agritech.org.nz/sheep.shtml to http://www.agritech.org.nz/sheep.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Domestic sheep reproduction. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080728104359/http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/sheep/4989.html to http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/sheep/4989.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a draft at Draft:Lambing that has gone untouched for a year. It contains some additional information, but I'm not exactly sure which parts should be merged into this article. I don't think it's necessary to create a standalone lambing article though – Thjarkur (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)