This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it could do with another set of eyes before nominating at FAC. It's a long page, so huge thanks in advance to the person who does the review! In the meantime, I'll be working on tidying references and other issues I'm aware need to be done, but any feedback before FAC will be helpful.

Thanks so much, Truthkeeper (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eisfbnore

• "Pound was responsible for the publication in 1915 of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", and for the serialization from 1918 of Joyce's Ulysses." – the prepositional phrase "in 1915" would do better as an adjective, hence: "Pound was responsible for the 1915 publication of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", and for the serialization from 1918 of Joyce's Ulysses."
• "The Wadsworths married into the Westons of New York, and Harding Weston and Mary Parker produced Isabel Weston, Pound's mother." – is there a better word than 'produced'? Also, 'and' is repetitive.
• "It also includes his translation of the eighth-century Old English poem "The Seafarer", not a literal translation, but a personal interpretation intended for readers with no Old English, a poem in its own right." – with no Old English what? Knowledge?
• "He began to call Imagisme "Amygism," and in July 1914 declared it dead, asking only that the term be preserved, although Lowell eventually Anglicized it." – what a wonderful use of the subjunctive. Delicious.

Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 17:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eisfbnore! I've temporarily moved the page into a sandbox to work on refs and so as not to get out of sync will address these a little later. I particularly like the comment about the subjunctive! Truthkeeper (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These have been fixed. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

While you are working on references:

• Citation missing for Nadel (2007). There are two possibilities in Dorothy Shakespear and a comment next to the ref definition saying "check this edition vs. the 1999 ed".
• Short form ref consistency: please choose either "Nadel (2007), 18" or "Tytell 1987, pp. 337–339." or whatever style but not a mixture.

Happy editing. --Mirokado (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for pointing that out. I intend to go with "Nadel (2007), 18", and need to check against the editions I have at hand. Will be a bit of work, but worthwhile. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I don't know a lot about Pound, but I'd like to read the article and offer a few pointers on style, clarity etc. I had a long association with what was once the Regent Street Polytechnic, now the University of Westminster; I think it's hilarious that the University's WP article lists Pound as a "former faculty member", on the strength of the few night classes he gave! Detailed comments shortly, probably in dribs and drabs since it's a long article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(PS) You might in the meantime deal with the two disambiguation links identified by the tool. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Brian for taking this on. It is a large page and I'll be working my way through slowly myself, so no rush at all! Dabs done. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later

Here are a few points that jumped out during a quick skim. I will provide more detailed comments later:-

• The first mention of Pound in sections or paragraphs should not be in the form of a pronoun. There are multiple examples of this. You will need to vary some of the prose constructions to avoid repeatedly beginning paragraphs with "Pound..."
• Numbered or bullet-pointed lists of points should be avoided in the prose (see Imagism section)
• In a couple of instances, paragraphs end with uncited statements

Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Brian for pointing these out. The prose will probably get a workover once the page is fully established and for sure we'll weed out the repetitive uses of his name. The bulleted list is tricky and I've put it up for discussion on the talk page. Citing and sourcing efforts continue. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]