![]() | Rupi Kaur has been listed as one of the
Language and literature 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. Review: January 6, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Dakotarose777. Peer reviewers:
Dakotarose777.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... Rupi Kaur is perhaps the most famous contemporary Canadian poet. She has been featured in countless publications including the Huffington Post, the Montreal Gazette, The Guardian, CBC, The Toronto Star, and many more. Her critically acclaimed book, Milk and Honey, has stayed in the top three most purchased poetry books on amazon.com for several months. Kaur has gone on to be invited to talk at several universities throughout Canada. This page should not be deleted as Ms. Kaur is an important figure not only in Canadian literature, but also in contemporary poetry world wide. -- Cooperrr1986 ( talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
This page seems factually sound, although there are a few problems with it. The main issue is that it is very bare bones and lacks much information. I think more in depth sections about her book and her spoken word and art work needs to be made, among other things. There also might be some close paraphrasing on the page. I plan to edit this page and address these issues in the near future. Dakotarose777 ( talk) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Most discussions of allegations of plagiarism in Kaur's poetry that I've seen, including the discussion in this Wikipedia entry, use poor-quality sources as well as overly broad definitions of plagiarism. This Wikipedia entry even cites a user comment on an Amazon.com page, which I am sure doesn't come close to qualifying as a reliable source. Jk180 ( talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I would work on adding more details like the Talk page says is necessary, as well as ensuring that there is no plagiarism and reliable sources are being used as the Talk page mentions a need for — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deena.husami ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Many wiki pages of celebrities with English-unconventional names will show, in parentheses, an IPA transcription of said name. Is there any place where Kaur has audibly pronounced her last name that we could add one to this page?
73.169.192.71 ( talk) 20:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
discussing her? ∯WBG converse 16:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)How is people finding some TikTok cringey notable enough to include here? Oscar666kta420swag ( talk) 07:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The entire reason that Kaur is known is because her poetry is laughably bad. We don't say "her poetry is bad" on Wikipedia, we say "these critics have said that her poetry is bad [1][2][3]" but without saying either it becomes yet another "random collection of arbitrary facts" article where a person could read and memorize the entire page and still come away with no understanding of why the subject is notable. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 09:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it's pretty odd that a large portion of the Reception section is dedicated to people responding and dismissing criticism of her writing, yet we don't have a single source leading back to that criticism. Seems odd and unbalanced to have a section full of people responding to criticism, without any of the actual criticism being presented, especially when the response to the criticism is based in large part around accusing people of bigotry - it seems like an instance in which you'd want to make it easy for people to actually see the criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrist marxist ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on the lengths of their respective Wikipedia pages, it seems like this site thinks she is. This article has really gotten out of hand.
Let's start with the elephant in the room: Rupi Kaur is an Internet meme. She's famous because she's an incredibly bad self-proclaimed "poet" whom the dumbest people online like, and is known to most people who have heard of her solely through parody and mockery of her work. You can dress that up in Wikipedia neutral language and citations as much as you want, but it's still the case. It's ludicrous that she's getting more coverage than people who are actually important to the history of poetry as opposed to the history of Instagram and online humor.
Second fact: Wikipedia has a recency bias that stems mainly from the tendency to add a sentence to an article for every news article that comes out about its subject. People who are actively generating news in the present day when it's easy to find thousands of outlets online get huge pages that are just accumulations of often unhelpful sentences piled on each other. Most of the information in this page is totally pointless to understand Rupi Kaur at the level of an encyclopedia entry and is somewhere between the level of detail one would expect from a book-length biography and meaningless public relations speak. For example, right now the article contains the sentence "After meeting her business partner, she became more calculated." This assertion has nothing to do with understanding why Rupi Kaur is notable and adds nothing to the article.
I think this page needs a full rewrite that just focuses, in about three paragaphs, on the important facts about Kaur's biography, citations to critics who have explained why her poetry is terrible, and a reasonable (2-3 sentence) rebuttal from her defenders. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 17:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MSG17 ( talk · contribs) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article for GA-worthiness as part of the
Jan 2022 backlog drive. I was really surprised to see that no one had taken up this review until now. I have read the article previously and found it to be rather interesting and informative, but now I will check it against the
good article criteria. I don't forsee many major issues, but let's get started!
their similar themes and use of honey is "by-product of our times"add '[a]' or 'the' to the start of the quote
that in the Renaissance or Victorian periods - Kaur attributing their namesakesreplace " - " with emdash
– although her father refused her to pursue it in educationthat's kinda awkward, maybe something like
;however, her father prohibited her from studying the subject in university. Another approach would be to split it from the line about her music studies and merge it with her other aspirations.
– that Kaur later inferred as a result of wishing to preserve their orginal culturedon't think the dash is needed, since inferred is used right after I think "realized/interpreted was a result" would be better, "orginal" -> "original"
Carl Wilson and Khaira-Hanks, argued that her mainstream success and personal identity contributed towards people disregarding her work.no need for comma
literature scholar, Lili Pâquetno comma needed
One last lookover...
When studying poetry she'd "agonize over each and every word", "I would have to pull out...replace comma with colon
In general, I do find your use of dashes a bit different form what I am accustomed to - there would be a lot of instances I would use commas and semicolons instead. Looking at your previous work, this seems like a style that I don't know about rather than something that is "wrong". It's nice to learn new things! Anyway, these comments should be the last on prose and MOS.
No edit warring or drastic daily changes, just minor additions. Passed.
Given how polarized reception is for Kaur's work and the amount of discussion about why that is so, covering her neutrally is no small feat. SO far, it looks like it offers a good look into the different perspectives of audiences and critics on Kaur, but I will look more at this aspect later.
After looking at this again, I think the article has done a fantastic job showing the difference between critical and audience reception and the different views of her work. Passed. MSG17 ( talk) 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Scope wise, I think this covers as many relevant details and aspects of Kaur and her work as possible without becoming too minute or unnecessarily focused on certain aspects. Passed.
Well, I gotta hand it to you, this was great work as a comprehensive and encyclopediac dive into a rather popular and divisive poet. I have no skill with the art, unfornuately; if I did, I would come up with a clever end to this review. But it still speaks to the accessibility the article had to laypeople, much like Kaur's work. Now, I deem this article promoted to GA, congrats! MSG17 ( talk) 03:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
At present the 'Early Life' section is poorly written and needs to be edited for clarity and concision. I think the descriptive detail is too much and goes beyond what we would usually expect from a Wikipedia article. Can we try to focus on 'just the facts' and avoid straying into an overly developed chronicle of every minor facet of her life? Boredintheevening ( talk) 17:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Rupi Kaur has been listed as one of the
Language and literature 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. Review: January 6, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Dakotarose777. Peer reviewers:
Dakotarose777.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... Rupi Kaur is perhaps the most famous contemporary Canadian poet. She has been featured in countless publications including the Huffington Post, the Montreal Gazette, The Guardian, CBC, The Toronto Star, and many more. Her critically acclaimed book, Milk and Honey, has stayed in the top three most purchased poetry books on amazon.com for several months. Kaur has gone on to be invited to talk at several universities throughout Canada. This page should not be deleted as Ms. Kaur is an important figure not only in Canadian literature, but also in contemporary poetry world wide. -- Cooperrr1986 ( talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
This page seems factually sound, although there are a few problems with it. The main issue is that it is very bare bones and lacks much information. I think more in depth sections about her book and her spoken word and art work needs to be made, among other things. There also might be some close paraphrasing on the page. I plan to edit this page and address these issues in the near future. Dakotarose777 ( talk) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Most discussions of allegations of plagiarism in Kaur's poetry that I've seen, including the discussion in this Wikipedia entry, use poor-quality sources as well as overly broad definitions of plagiarism. This Wikipedia entry even cites a user comment on an Amazon.com page, which I am sure doesn't come close to qualifying as a reliable source. Jk180 ( talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I would work on adding more details like the Talk page says is necessary, as well as ensuring that there is no plagiarism and reliable sources are being used as the Talk page mentions a need for — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deena.husami ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Many wiki pages of celebrities with English-unconventional names will show, in parentheses, an IPA transcription of said name. Is there any place where Kaur has audibly pronounced her last name that we could add one to this page?
73.169.192.71 ( talk) 20:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
discussing her? ∯WBG converse 16:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)How is people finding some TikTok cringey notable enough to include here? Oscar666kta420swag ( talk) 07:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The entire reason that Kaur is known is because her poetry is laughably bad. We don't say "her poetry is bad" on Wikipedia, we say "these critics have said that her poetry is bad [1][2][3]" but without saying either it becomes yet another "random collection of arbitrary facts" article where a person could read and memorize the entire page and still come away with no understanding of why the subject is notable. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 09:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it's pretty odd that a large portion of the Reception section is dedicated to people responding and dismissing criticism of her writing, yet we don't have a single source leading back to that criticism. Seems odd and unbalanced to have a section full of people responding to criticism, without any of the actual criticism being presented, especially when the response to the criticism is based in large part around accusing people of bigotry - it seems like an instance in which you'd want to make it easy for people to actually see the criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrist marxist ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on the lengths of their respective Wikipedia pages, it seems like this site thinks she is. This article has really gotten out of hand.
Let's start with the elephant in the room: Rupi Kaur is an Internet meme. She's famous because she's an incredibly bad self-proclaimed "poet" whom the dumbest people online like, and is known to most people who have heard of her solely through parody and mockery of her work. You can dress that up in Wikipedia neutral language and citations as much as you want, but it's still the case. It's ludicrous that she's getting more coverage than people who are actually important to the history of poetry as opposed to the history of Instagram and online humor.
Second fact: Wikipedia has a recency bias that stems mainly from the tendency to add a sentence to an article for every news article that comes out about its subject. People who are actively generating news in the present day when it's easy to find thousands of outlets online get huge pages that are just accumulations of often unhelpful sentences piled on each other. Most of the information in this page is totally pointless to understand Rupi Kaur at the level of an encyclopedia entry and is somewhere between the level of detail one would expect from a book-length biography and meaningless public relations speak. For example, right now the article contains the sentence "After meeting her business partner, she became more calculated." This assertion has nothing to do with understanding why Rupi Kaur is notable and adds nothing to the article.
I think this page needs a full rewrite that just focuses, in about three paragaphs, on the important facts about Kaur's biography, citations to critics who have explained why her poetry is terrible, and a reasonable (2-3 sentence) rebuttal from her defenders. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 17:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MSG17 ( talk · contribs) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article for GA-worthiness as part of the
Jan 2022 backlog drive. I was really surprised to see that no one had taken up this review until now. I have read the article previously and found it to be rather interesting and informative, but now I will check it against the
good article criteria. I don't forsee many major issues, but let's get started!
their similar themes and use of honey is "by-product of our times"add '[a]' or 'the' to the start of the quote
that in the Renaissance or Victorian periods - Kaur attributing their namesakesreplace " - " with emdash
– although her father refused her to pursue it in educationthat's kinda awkward, maybe something like
;however, her father prohibited her from studying the subject in university. Another approach would be to split it from the line about her music studies and merge it with her other aspirations.
– that Kaur later inferred as a result of wishing to preserve their orginal culturedon't think the dash is needed, since inferred is used right after I think "realized/interpreted was a result" would be better, "orginal" -> "original"
Carl Wilson and Khaira-Hanks, argued that her mainstream success and personal identity contributed towards people disregarding her work.no need for comma
literature scholar, Lili Pâquetno comma needed
One last lookover...
When studying poetry she'd "agonize over each and every word", "I would have to pull out...replace comma with colon
In general, I do find your use of dashes a bit different form what I am accustomed to - there would be a lot of instances I would use commas and semicolons instead. Looking at your previous work, this seems like a style that I don't know about rather than something that is "wrong". It's nice to learn new things! Anyway, these comments should be the last on prose and MOS.
No edit warring or drastic daily changes, just minor additions. Passed.
Given how polarized reception is for Kaur's work and the amount of discussion about why that is so, covering her neutrally is no small feat. SO far, it looks like it offers a good look into the different perspectives of audiences and critics on Kaur, but I will look more at this aspect later.
After looking at this again, I think the article has done a fantastic job showing the difference between critical and audience reception and the different views of her work. Passed. MSG17 ( talk) 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Scope wise, I think this covers as many relevant details and aspects of Kaur and her work as possible without becoming too minute or unnecessarily focused on certain aspects. Passed.
Well, I gotta hand it to you, this was great work as a comprehensive and encyclopediac dive into a rather popular and divisive poet. I have no skill with the art, unfornuately; if I did, I would come up with a clever end to this review. But it still speaks to the accessibility the article had to laypeople, much like Kaur's work. Now, I deem this article promoted to GA, congrats! MSG17 ( talk) 03:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
At present the 'Early Life' section is poorly written and needs to be edited for clarity and concision. I think the descriptive detail is too much and goes beyond what we would usually expect from a Wikipedia article. Can we try to focus on 'just the facts' and avoid straying into an overly developed chronicle of every minor facet of her life? Boredintheevening ( talk) 17:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)