Wikipedia:Featured article review/Imagism/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 10:04, 28 October 2007.

Review commentary

 * User:Filiocht‎ and User:Stumps notified. No WikiProjects are listed on the article's talk page.

WP:WIAFA 2(d) states: (d) "Where inline citations are appropriate, they should be consistently formatted using either footnotes] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)"  --  There is not a single in-text citation in the Imagism article, nor does it ever mention any of the works or authors on its reference list (with the exception of Aldington). There was an inquiry as to how it ever acheived FA status, so I'm nominating it for review (I suspect it was promoted when standards were lower). It's well written, but does not back up any of its claims. -DMCer 16:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a small start at including some in-line citations ... the listed references are quite specific, sometimes giving page numbers ... so it's probably just a matter of digging up the texts and inserting the appropriate footnotes. Stumps 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Substantively, the article is a gem, and the quality of writing reflects the fact that one of the contributors is a major poet himself. I'll look to chip in some citations. A Musing 13:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does appear to be lacking in citations; I'll work on it in the next few days, but I'm not willing to say its status should be revoked. AdamBiswanger1 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also added eight sources for quotations last week. It's very important to point out the extent to which this article is self-referencing:
 * Clearly linking Objectivism's principles with Imagism's, Louis Zukofsky insisted, in his introduction to the 1931 Objectivist issue of Poetry, on writing "which is the detail, not mirage, of seeing, of thinking with the things as they exist, and of directing them along a line of melody."
 * In October 1912, he submitted three poems each by H.D. and Aldington under the Imagiste rubric. That same month, Pound's book Ripostes was published with an appendix called The Complete Poetical Works of T. E. Hulme which carried a note that saw the first appearance of the word Imagiste in print.
 * Aldington's poems, Choricos, To a Greek Marble, and Au Vieux Jardin, were in the November issue of Poetry and H.D.'s, Hermes of the Ways, Orchard, and Epigram, appeared in the January 1913 issue; Imagism as a movement was launched.
 * The March issue of Poetry also contained Pound's A Few Don'ts by an Imagiste and Flint's Imagisme. The latter contained this succinct statement of the group's position:


 * This article is a perfect example of why "citation counting" is problematic. If there are no "challenged" statements to present, there is little to be done here. It is instructive that I was able to add eight or ten citations in a few hours without leaving my computer or even delving into a non-public Internet database. A reader wanting to confirm the "gist" of this article is certainly capable of doing the same, and would have to do so whether citations existed or not. – Outriggr § 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A good point ... I was a bit thrown by the term 'self-referencing' until I realized it meant proving references in the body of the article ... It's a good way to get a solid factual article which is easily verifiable. Stumps 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone pls review my edits; I'm unclear on some of the capitalization here. For example, is Classical values a proper noun? Modernist poetry in English was capitalized in one place in the text, but not in another; not sure which it should be. Also, I reduced an all caps quote per MOS:CAPS, opinions on that (that direct quote can be sourced to a JSTOR article that I can't access, maybe Outriggr can source it?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy. I added the quote reference and returned the quote to uppercase, as he wrote it. Would you be willing to reformat the book references at the bottom in accepted style? thanks – Outriggr § 07:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c, 2d). Marskell 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see Outrigger and Stumps have been at work. People can update how they feel about this. Marskell 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's close to a save. A few claims need to be cited, the images need captions, and the "Pre-Imagism" section needs to be trimed. Ceoil 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The Pre-Imagism section could do with trimming yet, but this is FA standard in my eyes. Ceoil 11:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut the bits and pieces I was unhappy with, so my support is unqualified. Ceoil 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, keep—it does what wikipedia's best work needs to do. – Outriggr § 00:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.