What if.... poets had to undergo academic philosophy's refereeing process?

Per Simon Kirchin on FB:

Reviewer 2. “Are clouds really ever lonely? This is stupid anthropomorphism, and wrong because many clouds clump together. I have a poem on clumped clouds from last year.”

I enjoyed this ambitious and lengthy typescript about various kinds of waste land, but missed any reference to possible uses for such underutilised amenity. Should housing be built there? Is it suitable for a country park or retail units? Author fails to specify.

OR: I enjoyed this ambitious and lengthy typescript about various kinds of waste land, but felt it would have worked better in limericks.

(This referee signed herself WC)

Author needs to make his mind up. WILL he compare her to a summer's day? Or won't he? I have no patience with this sort of vague shilly-shallying.

"Mr Hopkins' Deutschland poem. A shipwreck? Train wreck, more like."

The cap-shift on Mr E E Cummings' typewriter needs to be fixed immediately.

I mean, Shakespeare, yeah. But what has he done *recently*? In good journals, in the last 6 years?

Mr Milton writes engagingly if somewhat fancifully about the origins of the human propensity to disobedience, but seems entirely unaware of relevant work by Richard Dawkins.

The author needs to beware of the temptation to pad out a poem by repetition. For instance, I counted four repetitions of "Rage, rage against the dying of the light".

While I can think of many bad things that could possibly happen to a lock, I fail to see how it could be raped.