Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Modernist poetry in English/archive1

Modernist poetry in English

My first ever (anon) edit was creating this page. Recently, Ive expanded it and others have chipped in (long way of saying self-nom). I think it's a reasonable overview of a complex subject. Filiocht 12:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, has everything, some of Wikipedia's best work indeed. The entire credit for this elegant article should go where it belongs, to Filiocht. (Disclosure: I did some minor copyediting.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Jeronimo 18:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (I did author a short paragraph.) Geogre 14:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support: A beautifully written page on a very difficult, varied and exhaustive subject Giano 17:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as always. I think Filiocht deserves a special award for his amazing ability to come up with articles like this on even on the most challenging subjects. Ambi 03:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but basically I just write about stuff I'm interested in and have been living with for the last 35 years or so. Filiocht 08:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely page. Goes past "overview" into some depth, which is great. Good job! [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 22:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wow great work, had everything I was expecting to see, pictures, references, information on the impact, development and legacy. My only nit is that the lead section is not all that well structured for someone not already familiar with the subject. The first paragraph spends more time telling us what Imagists are than telling us what modernism is. The first paragraph of the section 'Modernist poetry' seems to do a much better job of telling what modernism is. Can you refocus the first paragraph to ease us into the subject? Support, after this one nit is fixed. - Taxman 04:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Better now? Filiocht 08:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Well it is a little non-standard and the sentence structure of that first paragraph is awfully complicated (It's all one also), and doesn't ease the reader in, but it does explain the topic. The rest of the article is excellent, so I won't object on that. - Taxman 15:39, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I've split that paragraph into three sentences to try to clarify. I can't see a way of working the article title in any earlier than the 2nd para, unfortunately. Filiocht 15:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, better, but can you find simpler terms for "versification" and a simpler way of expressing the idea in the third sentence? Specifically, what do you mean by "dislocation of the 'I'"? Especially the dislocation part. There are still multiple clauses in that sentence, which is fine for later in an article, but a lead section, especially the first paragraph, needs a gentler introduction to the material. I'm assuming it is clearer than day to you, but to someone not familiar with the subject it still takes some significant deciphering. - Taxman 20:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have, somewhat reluctantly, further simplified this paragraph. Hope it's OK now. There is a limit to the degree to which these concepts can be simplified, just as there is in physics or medicine, say. Filiocht 08:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like it, I think it is much better. Hopefully someone else will weigh in. - Taxman 14:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)