Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imogen Holst/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014.

Imogen Holst

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Imogen Holst composed, conducted, danced, played the piano, taught, wrote lots of books, started orchestras and choirs, ran festivals... and so on. She never really cut it as a composer, and her music is not much heard, but her huge contribution to Britain's musical life over many decades is widely acknowledged. I have referred to her as "Imogen" throughout the article, acknowledging her father's prior claim to be "Holst" and following the Cosima Wagner precedent. Thanks to various peer reviewers for some excellent suggestions and improvement; further suggestions very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was among those who peer reviewed the article, and my suggestions were thoroughly dealt with there. I am wholly in favour of the nominator's decision to use his subject's given name throughout: I saw an early draft in which the usual WP convention of surnaming her was attempted, and at many points it left one uncertain whether it was the father or the daughter who was being referred to. Balance, sourcing and referencing are all first class and the prose is a pleasure to read. As for completeness, Wikipedia leaves the competition at the starting post, giving this important figure in British music 6,300 words, unlike the the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which sprints through her life in a skimpy 1,130 words, and the supposedly authoritative Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which spares her just 430 words. Another peer reviewer commented "Considering how much she did for others, it's great to see an article that does proper justice to Imogen", and I so agree! – Tim riley (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Also one of the peer reviewers. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Image review The lead image is appropriate fair use with a rationale, all others have appropriate licenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Support as another of the peer reviewers. I agree with every word Tim writes, and his comparisons show just how well this article contributes to Wikipedia's standing. --Stfg (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Support: Another peer reviewer. Like Tim, I think "Imogen" works better than "Holst", and I have nothing but praise for this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * May I thank all of the above for their peer review contributions and for their support here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I understand the reasoning for using "Imogen", but I'm not sure I like the implications it has for gender-neutrality. Shouldn't the article subject take precedence over a relative when it comes to formal, neutral naming? Why "Imogen" and not "Gustav"? I should stress that I'm not objecting to FA status, just floating the idea. Peter Isotalo 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I sort of have two minds about it - I agree that it seems minimizing to refer to her by her first name when standard practice is to use a person's last name. That said, perhaps the reason I feel less comfortable with the idea is that I'm not particularly familiar with the subject area. Perhaps referring to Imogen is as Holst is as jarring to experts as it would be to me to refer to Paula Hitler as "Hitler" throughout her biography. Based on a quick skim of Leopold Mozart, it seems he is usually referred to by his first name, in deference to his more famous son. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't known of Paula Hitler, but I agree she is a good example of someone whom it wouldn't really work to call by surname. Leopold Mozart is another excellent case in point, though that article calls both Mozarts by their first names. It would work to refer to Holst senior as "Gustav", but somehow I think it would feel strange and subtly wrong – I suppose because one is so used to thinking of the composer of The Planets as "Holst" tout court. There is also the (admittedly pedantic) point that legally, if not in practice, he was "Gustavus" until he changed his name formally in 1918. I think sticking to surnaming him and first-naming Imogen is clearest and the best option, on balance. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concerns expressed here. However, in the use of surnames I don't think  an article's subject always should take precedence over a relative, especially when the relative in question is the more famous and is the one usually  identified by that surname. More so, when the latter is a significant presence in the article. At the peer review, where I invited discussion on this point,  every reviewer accepted that "Imogen" was the best alternative and, significantly, the least confusing to readers (an exact WP precedent is in Cosima Wagner, where the same issue and the same solution was applied). Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – a delight to read. I used to live in Thaxted and frequently walked past the house where I remembered her father.  It was this building that led me to his music, and have since become a fan.  I knew very little of Imogen, but thanks to this, I shall now root out some of her compositions.   Cassianto talk  21:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and I hope you get some joy from the music – not to everyone's taste, I suspect, but somehow more appealing when you know something about the person that wrote it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
Overall an extremely good article which merits featured status. I've mulled over the comments above about the use of "Imogen", as opposed to Holst, and I think that if I was reading an article which continually referred to "Holst", I think I would start getting slightly confused with the better-known father, rather than daughter. I'm also swayed by the Hitler and Mozart parallels, which show that we do use a similar naming method in other areas where such a problem exists.

I've made a few very small edits here and there (on ellipses, pp.s and dashes); feel free to revert if you disagree or I've introduced errors. A very few very minor points for your consideration: accept or ignore as you see fit:

Birth
 * "Holst was born on 14 April 1907, at 31 Grena": is the comma needed here?
 * Probably better without. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Royal College of Music
 * "This and other performances on the podium led the Daily Telegraph to speculate that Imogen might eventually become the first woman to "establish a secure tenure of the conductor's platform"." I think we can afford at least one comma in here?
 * I doubt it. Where could one go? --Stfg (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of places you could put one—it could even take two, if you turn part of the sentence into a sub clause—but I'll leave it to Brian to make a call on it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a case of two or none: after "This" and after "podium" is possible, but I don't think altogether necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

EFDSS and teaching, 1931–38
 * I almost corrected the title on this one, as we'd previously read about the EFDS (whose abbreviation had been explained) and not the EFDSS. It's only a couple of lines in that we're told EFDSS is another abbreviation and not an error
 * I agree the heading could confuse. I have altered it to "Mainly teaching", which suitably covers her EFDSS duties. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "she would protect her father's musical legacy, and began working on a biography": his biography, maybe?
 * Yes, OK Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Illness, death, tributes
 * "The two were close until 1929, and exchanged poetry. Tomalin married in 1931.": perhaps these two short sentences could run together, sandwiching a semi-colon as they do? (Yes, I too am aware of the irony of encouraging you to use more s-c.s, but you have been rather sparing with your use this time!)
 * Well, OK if you say so! Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Honours
 * "of Essex (1968), Exeter (1969), and Leeds (1983)." Just wondering why the serial comma, which you eschew elsewhere?
 * I tend not to use serial commas when the  items are essentially part of a continuum, e.g. I would write "ham, egg and chips" not "ham, egg, and chips". In the case above, the universities are discrete bodies, and it seems that to remove the serial comma might give a sense  that Exeter and Leeds were related in some way. This is not a stance that I will defend strongly if you really think the comma ought to go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Music
 * "she uses dissonance to add power to the text": 'power' could be seen as slightly peacocky: would it be worth attributing this?
 * I have now quoted and attributed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Notes
 * "The EFDSS was formed in December 1931": our own article has '32 (as does Grove) and that was also the impression I got from the section on Imogen, where we have "joining the staff of the EFDS early in 1932."
 * The exact note that I've cited reads: "The English Folk Dance Society (EFDS) became the English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS) in December 1931, when it merged with the English Folk Song Society". The EDFS Grove article gives the amalgamation year as 1932. I have dug a little deeper, and discovered that the decision to amalgamate was indeed taken in 1931, but came into legal effect in March 1932. I don't think it's particularly important, but I've made the necessary alteration to the footnote and add a further citation – it's as well to be accurate in small things. Brianboulton (talk)

Nothing to knock off course what will be my imminent support, but just a couple of little things to consider first. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments and suggestions, which you will see that I have largely adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - happy to add my support to this ripping piece of work about a sadly overlooked lady. - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Why are the parentheses around series names italicized?
 * Holst (1974) - are you sure that the given OCLC number is not actually an ISBN?
 * Check alphabetization of Sources list
 * Compare FNs 5 and 6
 * Be consistent in whether you include retrieval dates for online newspaper articles
 * FN74: formatting
 * FN99: should be Oxford Music Online. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this review. I have made the necessary fixes, apart from your 4th point – what am I supposed to be fixing here? Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is correct, "Part 1" or "Part I"? Suspect it's the latter. Either way, these should be the same part and the same page range, so might as well be combined. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course – sometimes I don't see what's staring me in the face. Now combined. Brianboulton (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose. Marvellous to read. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Support another peer reviewer here, had my say there. I feel this fine work comfortably meets the criteria and am delighted to support. Well done Brian, another triumph! —Cliftonian (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.