Talk:Imagism

message: Perhaps some readers would find a 'further reading' section of interest?  Suggestions:
* William Pratt: The Imagist Poem, Modern Poetry in Miniature, 1963, expanded 2001, 
* Julian Symons, Makers of the New: The Revolution in Literature, 1912–1939, Andre Deutsch, 1987, 
The first because it is specific to the topic of the article; the second because it is - I think - one of the best of its kind. —Stumps 07:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say add this. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it.  Not sure about placement.  I've put it before the References because I like the uniformity of the References ... especially the online links ... coming last. and also somehow it looks better with the short 'Further Reading' going before the longer References, BUT I think the Jones book better than the Pratt, and the current arrangement seems to place emphasis the other way around. Any opinions anyone? —Stumps 08:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've placed it where I would have, FWIW. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 'Further Reading' Section? 

message: How did this get to be a FA when the criteria is supposed to be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations"?...I find it hard to believe there is no such appropriate place in this article.Rlevse 04:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing, I'm putting it up for review.-DMCer 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the sourced sections now only have 1 citation in them. The "Early publications and statements of intent" section doesn't have any.DMCer 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Just wanted to stop by and praise the editors who worked on this article. I read it rather nervously, because I used to be deeply into Pound and his strain of Modernism (exemplified by Hugh Kenner's Pound Era book), but I was very impressed. Well done! (I do agree with Rlevse that the article could really use some inline citations at points, however, especially for quotes and particular little-known facts.) Sdedeo (tips) 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantastic article

message: I happened across this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginism, which describes a type of poetry I've never heard of, and seems to have appeared at the same time as Imigism.  There's no mention of it elsewhere, so I was wondering if it isn't a mistake, or if it's a real movement, if the timeline could be better defined. 66.57.225.195 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imaginisim

message: It is rather appalling to me that the page as it is completely omits discussion of Chinese and Japanese poetry from which Pound drew great inspiration and derived essential elements of Imagism.
RachelXinruHua (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese/Japanese Influence 

message: This is a finely crafted article, but it was promoted at a time where inline citations weren't required for Featured Articles. Several inline citations were introduced in its 2007 FAR, but as it stands, I believe more inline citations are needed, such as in the Japanese influences, Pound's introduction to the group, the reflection of "Pound's interest in poems written to be sung to music", the "little popular or critical success" received by a particular book and the reasons for it, etc. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To note, the article is still actively maintained. Ceoil (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good, I saw the nominator was inactive so I wasn't sure. The article reads very well and looks well-structured/concise, so I think it's mostly a matter of lack of citations in some paragraphs. I notice you have a lot on your plate right now (Shoom at FAC, an album at FAR and punk rock, I think?, not sure), so with the knowledge that the article is being watched and maintained, I'll mark it as "work ongoing" so it won't accidentally end up at FAR. Most of these notices don't get an answer so in my view ample time should be given to the very few that do. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  SandyGeorgia, I've taken care to not overwhelm any editor or project, but I've failed to notice that Ceoil was involved in this one (my mistake). I've marked the article as "improvements ongoing" so it can have all the time it needs, since it's being watched by someone who is knowledgeable and a good writer. What is your opinion? The article reads very well, if a bit undercited. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but its fine. We already have Ezra Pound as a relatively recent and rather comprehensive FA, and a lot of the sources needed here have been established there. To an extent I'm updating this article with the work Victoria and Sarah have done, and continue to maintain, on the Pound bio, cross checking as I go. However, in the cold light of day can see some gaps in coverage, so might have dig out old books and do a bit more heaving lifting in the weeks to come. I do appreciate the latitude though, and have noticed you are very fair about these things. Ceoil (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprised to see this, in fact have been expecting it. I'm trying to think where my imagism sources are, but have the Pound sources in the nearest bookshelf so can help as needed.  probably has sources at hand from the recent Pound rewrite, so think this can be cleaned up if time and latitude are available.  your recent edits are a very strong start, thanks for stepping up so quickly. Victoria (tk) 14:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , repinging (I misspelt your user name). Victoria (tk) 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Victoria. My feeling is that the article could be spruced up a fair bit, it doesn't really do justice to the topic. I am very interested though, and while today was mainly about maintenance, plan to spend a few days reading before moving on the actual content....while also keeping H.D. in mind.  Ceoil (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. Give me a yell if you need anything. I have Moody and a Cambridge Companion within reaching distance (that's how lazy I am these days but also shows which sources stayed close by) so am happy to look up page numbers or provide support. Victoria (tk) 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound as always. Ceoil (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

text: RetiredDuke, the way you have handled it at the templates is fine, and I expect this team of accomplished FA writers will finish tuning up the article as soon as time allows (but they are busy!).  Please ping me when folks want me to review with an eye to marking "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let the content-experts work as they see fit. No problems w/ latitude from my end. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

text: RetiredDuke, would appreciate if you could take another look now and spot remaining gaps. You have been most helpful so far. Ceoil (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceoil, sure. I will take a look in the coming days. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceoil, so so very sorry for taking so long, it's been some hectic weeks for me. The article looks much better now in terms of citations, and I've made some minor fixes in the mean time. There are a couple of places that are missing citations (the last para of Legacy and " the 1917 anthology effectively marked the end of the Imagists as a movement."), but I don't think that alone merits a visit to FAR. I've taken it out of WP:FARGIVEN so it won't fall there by mistake. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not a native speaker of English and while I was able to follow the article without difficulty, the theme is a bit complex, so I wonder if Hog Farm, Z1720 or SandyGeorgia could help review the article with an eye to marking "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020? RetiredDuke (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Sorry I took so long to return here; I took most of the middle of the year off after socks disrupted a FAR.  Please ping me when Z1720 is satisfied, so I can review towards marking Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns