Talk:Rupi Kaur/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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!
Prose and MOS[edit]
- I find most of the notes a bit strange, as they contain information that can be integrated into prose and is relevant to each section (and wouldn't just be "sidetracking"). In particular, the last two notes (feminist critics on the period images and other poets on Watt) strike me as details that would be better in the main text as they talk about relevant reactions and reception.
- Also, it should be "Watts'", not ""Watt's".
- Both resolved. DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
their similar themes and use of honey is "by-product of our times"
add '[a]' or 'the' to the start of the quotethat in the Renaissance or Victorian periods - Kaur attributing their namesakes
replace " - " with emdash– although her father refused her to pursue it in education
that'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.
- Both resolved. DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
– that Kaur later inferred as a result of wishing to preserve their orginal culture
don'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
- Both resolved. DMT Biscuit (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
literature scholar, Lili Pâquet
no comma needed
- Resolved. DMT Biscuit (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
One last lookover...
When studying poetry she'd "agonize over each and every word", "I would have to pull out...
replace comma with colon- Brampton, Instagram, COVID-19 pandemic are linked multiple times in the body (found using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt)
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.
- Both resolved. For what it's worth, I like to use dashes as denoting an aside of sorts. DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Great! Passed.
Paraphrasing and images[edit]
- Earwig's tool saw mostly false positives. There are a few words that could be consindered close, but I think they'll be fine. Passed.
- The images are all properly licensed and used appropriately. The one fair-use image is essential for depicting the illustrations that Kaur uses in her poetry and art. Passed.
Stability[edit]
No edit warring or drastic daily changes, just minor additions. Passed.
Neutrality[edit]
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[edit]
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.
References[edit]
- All the works cited are reliable. Additionally, it looks like there are a good mix of sources (popular news and journals as well as sources from across the Anglosphere). Passed.
- Every statement is backed up by a source (in fact, often multiple sources). No original research here.
- Layout-wise, I noticed that most references have wikilinks for the works they come from, but there are quite a few exceptions. Please standardize this (I would recommend linking all occurrences). MSG17 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Resolved. DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- There are quite a few places where there are four or five refs next to each other. Usually three should be the max, although given the themes expressed by (and, dare I say, bias against) Kaur, it is understandable that some statements need more. Nevertheless, I would recommend looking at removing a couple or bundling citations.
- This is a slight problem. The reason for the various citation clumping is because Kaur's received little in-depth attention - monographs and whatnot. To be properly comprehensive, I've essentially had to glue together ephemera. For obvious reasons, I don't want to, if avoidable, remove info for aestheticism. Bundling citations - as far as I can tell - isn't very viable, per the templates listed and structure of the article. I have altered articles for reasons of bundling citations twice before but that's a duly process. I could do it again now but that would require placing this review on hold for a significant portion of time, real life permitting. I do intend to do it in the foreseeable future. Ultimately, your discretion is key. What do you think is the right order? Or do you have specific means of implementation? DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm... yeah, citation bundling has been messy. While I do like sfn, I wouldn't really recommend it here due to the large number of website refs used once (as opposed to books and other paged publications being used multiple times, which is more of sfn's specialty). I think the refs can be managed by a couple changes:
- Move the content in notes c and d to mainspace: four refs followed by two notes is too much, and IMO this info is better there anyway (previous notes comment)
- Try to find a way to shorten the five-ref cluster, either by some form of sentence restructuring or deleting a ref.
- Resolved both, four-plus ref clusters have been reduced via sentence restructure and ref deletion. If there's further examples you take umbrage with, feel free to flag them up. DMT Biscuit (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- This has resolved the issue quite well. In fact, I feel that this has developed your writing style more in the article, particularly through the use of dashes. No more objections here.
Final notes[edit]
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
|
