This is where it gets complicated. A part of me agrees with you that it is in the parts and details of a poem that we should be looking but another part of me has a problem with that. Poems can follow models and often by following the model the poem succeeds, at least with regard to the model, so looking at the details will only bring out positives with regards to the model. The model too will often contain certain recognisable markers of tone, particularly at the beginning and end, and these tones can become so habitual that they become synonymous with what the makers and users of the model consider to be good poetry. I would say that in this scenario it is almost impossible to say that someone is simply being 'imitative'.

Just in case there is misunderstanding, when I say 'model' I don't mean 'form'. The form might be free verse, or a more formal form, but the model can be the same for both. The model is a pre-existing structure of expectations and flavours. Work outside of those expectations and flavours and you are not conforming to the model, you become 'one of the other lot'.

Tim A.
    
On 3 Dec 2013, at 16:32, Jamie McKendrick wrote:

This helps me understand the concept a shade better: a poem that’s written to ingratiate its author with a group or an audience, and probably then a very imitative one, and if so yes, I suppose we have all written imitative poems and this “probably lessens as a writer gains more confidence” whether or not that’s due to more “acceptance”. I still think it would be much easier as well as much more useful to demonstrate why a word, or a phrase, or a line in a poem is incompetently written, or uninteresting, or imitative, or even betraying an ersatz emotion than to show that it’s written “with an eye to advancement”, which would be merely presumptuous, and require a witchfinder’s mind-set or, as David suggests, a wine steward’s nose.
Best wishes,
Jamie