Alright, got a new one. This is what you call complete, but unpolished. The entire thought is formed, and down, but the specifics are lacking, and the desired effect is impeded. I see this happen with lots of writing, not just poetry, and it translates into arguments (like my first version of the first paper). It's possible to have a whole thought, but lack the polish, the specificity, that makes it convey what you're after. While the idea may be a good one, it's a given that the flaws in language can and will be used by opponents to imply meanings, while not intended, which can seriously detract from the argument's overall effectiveness.

Enough rambling, here's something to read.

The night is still 
now, quiet, dripping,
damp lamplights long 
ago gone bright -

bloomed, flickered 
open like the evening's 
morning glory, throwing 
flashes of pale pink;

an angle's trumpet, 
brugmansia's orange
opening gave way, now 
white, heavy and held 
high, spilling over into 
the darkness.  The black 

tarmac is slick, saturated 
shining branches sway slightly  
overhead; twigs droop,
drops hanging clear and 

pendant at their ends 
as if budding, as if 
the light has coalesced.
At the tips of branches

the star fruits swell, ripen,
and, falling from their facets,
briefly streak the sky.