Ukrainian language was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages 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.
I wish the article were more substantiated. For instance, I haven't found any reliable source which could approve argument that "Ukrainian is a lineal descendant of the colloquial language used in Kievan Rus'". According to the article policy an information must be verifiable. It would be reasonable if a source had been presented. Otherwise it is just a someone's equivocal opinion.184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Oresama
"Lineal descendant" means it stems from Old East Slavic, just like Russian and Belorussian. I'm not sure what kind of verification you need to that, it's a near-universally accepted point of view. Why you add the exact same text to the Russian language article if you think it's a problematic assertion? StasMalyga (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for an explanation. But if I get you right and if what you mean is correct, why does an idea repeat itself twice? I believe it's already been mentioned: "The Ukrainian language traces its origins to the Old East Slavic of the early medieval state of Kievan Rus';" But your interpretation is:"Lineal descendant" means it stems from Old East Slavic". Therefore shouldn't it be deleted to avoid a reiteration?220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Oresama
Good point, I'll delete it for now and see if any other editor wants to clarify it further. StasMalyga (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Much obliged, Stas. I don't see irrational statement by now.18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Oresama
§Re: Classification and relationship to other languages
I edited some of the language in this section to make it more idiomatic in English, but there's still a problem--as the content stands now it seems as though the article claims that at one time it was claimed that their common descent from East Slavic means that all three are the same language. If this assertion was made, it should be documented more clearly. Someone with expertise in this field of linguistics and culture will need to do this. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The claim would be idiotic anyway. All Romance languages share a common descent (from Latin), which would mean, by that very same logic, that they are all the same language. So would all Slavic languages be. Heck, all Indo-European languages share a common descent! So they are all the same language? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
So called Ukrainian languge of Soviet period is Poltava dialect of Russian. "Modern Ukrainian" is nothing more than artificial language with Polish and new-made words inserted to Little Russian. The difference between real dialects of 19th centure Little Russia and "modern Ukrainian" is so big that it requires translations from Little Russian to Ukrainian. Nothing strange that Ukrainian population doesn't understand this "language" and prefers standart Russian or local Little Russian. The last is easily understood by any native Russian-speaker. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
So maybe you cancel the article? Or all the science about the language? Or maybe you should better write a paragraph about the difference between dialects of 19 century and modern language? I do not need any translation to understand what is written 200 years ago. You are a tipic russian chauvinist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romari81 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Crimea and Sevastopol are not recognized as being part of Russia by virtually the entire world. Adding "Russia" behind them in the infobox is POV. As has been done at Ukraine, the words "disputed territory" are non-POV. Any further recognition of Russian aggression is POV. --Taivo (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit I made clearly states that they are partially recognized as territories of Russia. You stating that they are not part of Russia is POV because there are 15 countries and 3 partially recognized states who recognize Crimea as part of Russia. You can't just say they are disputed territories in this case since Republic of Crimea is Crimea under Russian administration, the Ukrainian administration is Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Under Russian law Crimea and Sevastopol have the Ukrainian language as official along with Russian and Crimean Tatar, if you consider Crimea as the Ukrainian territories then they are already included since Ukraine is already listed. You have to include that those territories are part of Russia because it was Russia who granted them the right to make Ukrainian an official language. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No, they are not "part of Russia", they are disputed territories, no matter if you think otherwise. This affects more than just this article and there needs to be an overall consensus followed throughout. That consensus was built at Ukraine. If you want to change that consensus, then build it, but your unilateral handing over of Crimea to Russia is not WP:NPOV. "Disputed" is the current NPOV status of those regions, without pressing the claim of either Ukraine or Russia. --Taivo (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Republic of Crimea is Crimea under Russian administration, not Ukrainian, Autonomous Republic of Crimea is Crimea under Ukrainian administration. The Republic of Crimea is partially recognized, but nevertheless in that partially recognized region Ukrainian is an official language. Transnistria is also a disputed region between Moldova and the government of Transnistria, but it doesn't just say disputed region because under Moldovan law the Ukrainian language is not official in that region it is only official under the law of Transnistria. Stating that the two regions of Crimea are partially recognized de facto territories of Russia isn't POV, it's the truth. I didn't just say that they are Russia I included that it is not entirely recognized. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You are still trying to ignore the consensus that was built at Ukraine to use "disputed (territory)" for Crimea. Your fine-grained legal arguments are pretty pointless because most readers will not comprehend the difference that you are trying to make. They will see "Crimea" and think "Crimea", not the subtlety that you are trying to force. If you want to build a consensus for a Russian POV, then you need to build it at the place from which all this flows: Ukraine. Then you can apply it uniformly to these articles related to Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
§visible attempts to colonize Ukraine by the Polish nobility ?
The colonization included inviting pesants (mostly from overpopulated Poland) to settle in Ukraine, so some Polish peasants had Ruthenian lords, the peasants Ukrainized and the lords Polonized. These are not exactly attempts to colonize Ukraine by the Polish nobility. Xx234 (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Under (Linguistic development of the Ukrainian language): " Another point of view developed during the 19th and 20th centuries by linguists of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. " - missing a verb or something ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)