The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014 [1].
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) reply
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) reply
Support Also one of the peer reviewers. Excellent work.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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
Royal College of Music
EFDSS and teaching, 1931–38
Illness, death, tributes
Honours
Music
Notes
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) reply
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) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support on prose. Marvellous to read. hamiltonstone ( talk) 06:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply
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) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014 [1].
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) reply
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) reply
Support Also one of the peer reviewers. Excellent work.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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
Royal College of Music
EFDSS and teaching, 1931–38
Illness, death, tributes
Honours
Music
Notes
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) reply
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) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support on prose. Marvellous to read. hamiltonstone ( talk) 06:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply
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) reply