Ricks seems to have spent a great deal of time on principles.  For
example:  "This edition is based on the conviction that, subordinate to the
establishing of the text and of textual variants (which are given at the foot
of a poem's page), the important thing is evidence of where the poems
came from, and of where they went to in Eliot's other work." (IMH, xxii)
His entire Preface discusses and establishes principles.  One may or may
not agree with them.

But in this case, he was clearly aiming at an audience of Eliot scholars,
and the extensive annotation is extremely helpful.  It can be used or
ignored in any case.

Date sent:              Thu, 1 May 2003 10:31:52 -0400
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Marcia Karp <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Questions for editors
To:                     [log in to unmask]

A recent thread:

   1. So, how much annotation should be done?  And should commentary
      thrown in?  Although I have  thoughts I'm refraining from sending it
      in unless I see some interest in this thread. [Rick P]
   2. Send it in -- it's always unpredictable in advance what will
      trigger a response and what won't. [Carrol]
   3. Seconded.  Even if Eliot's poetry sometimes suffers from
      overanalysis, too much information is better than too little.
   4. Better for what? But isn't it instead a question of good analysis
      and bad analysis, or astute analysis and sloppy analysis, or call it
      some such? [Ken]

Ken is getting to what I had in mind.  In response to Rick P's question

> Or rather, was Ricks' editorial material and/or style appropriate for
> this book?

I asked "what sort of elements would you (or others) think need to be
considered in order to answer your question?"

Rather than choosing between too much or not enough, doesn't an edition
(which your website is, Rick) have to be published with principles in
mind?  Most editors announce theirs in prefatory matter, although the
principles might be badly chosen or not be followed.  In what contexts is
more better?  or appropriate?  Who are the readers the editor--Rick or
George or Ricks--has in mind?

The March Hare has a particular layout, but it might have had others.
 So, too, your website.  Is that what you meant by style, Rick?

There is much to be considered in order to answer the question.  Editing
is more than proofreading or compiling.