Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gustav Holst/archive1
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 22:05, 27 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Gustav Holst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC), User:Tim riley Tim riley (Talk)[reply]
Tim riley and I have overhauled this article over the past few weeks. We think we have raised it to the required standard of FAC, and are grateful to the peer reviewers who help us to get it there. We welcome further comments on prose, structure, comprehensiveness, images or indeed anything else. Holst was a much nicer man than some of his contemporary composers—Delius, the egregious Grainger, etc—yet his music is sometimes fierce and at other times withdrawn and austere (excepting That Tune from The Planets). We hope we have done all aspects of him justice in the updated article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support had my say at the peer review. Very worthy article, and you are making That Tune go through my head ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this, and for previous review help. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- I was also active at the peer review where the issues I identified were satisfactorily addressed. Great work guys! -- CassiantoTalk 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --- the places I think this article could be improved are in the discussion of musical style (more score excerpts and reference to published analyses) and in the discussion of the two suites for band, which going into the literature on Holst for Wind Ensembles will show that there is considerable discussion and analysis of these pieces. But FAC is not a place to demand perfection -- it's a place to demand very very good and this article definitely passes that with room to spare. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this support and the pertinent comment. I have added a bit more on the 1909 and 1911 band suites and on the Moorside suite. Articles don't stop developing when they reach FAC, and I am sure that Tim and I will continue to look for ways in which we can strengthen the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I am also one who commented at PR. A couple more comments on a further read-through:
- You refer in the lead (and lower down the article) to the "First World War", but have a section title of "World War I", followed by the same phrase. My suggestion is to change the section title, but your choice, as long as the two are consistent;
- Aargh! Brian – how say you? I prefer "the First World War" to "World War I", but will happily go with whichever you choose. Tim riley (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have standardised to "First World War", which is my preference, too. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aargh! Brian – how say you? I prefer "the First World War" to "World War I", but will happily go with whichever you choose. Tim riley (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the formatting right on footnote 173? Shouldn't GH: An account of Holst's attitude to the teaching of composition, by one of his pupils appear in inverted commas, rather than italics, as it's the title?
- Adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You refer in the lead (and lower down the article) to the "First World War", but have a section title of "World War I", followed by the same phrase. My suggestion is to change the section title, but your choice, as long as the two are consistent;
- Your decision on how you want to deal with those (if at all), but it won't alter my support for this truly excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, SchroCat, for your support and the very pertinent comments. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My thanks also. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
