Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Disco Demolition Night/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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Disco Demolition Night

Disco Demolition Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Disco Demolition Night/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Balph Eubank (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. Disco Demolition Night is famous as a baseball promotion that went very wrong, but it's also had a broader cultural effect, symbolizing the end of disco. While this article is certainly fun, and no doubt there are more than a few laughs, it does carefully examine both the background and aftereffects. There is presently no image; this is because quite possibly no image would satisfy NFCC. If reviewers have other ideas, we'd be delighted to add one. Enjoy. Possible April 1 candidate.Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images, per my comments at the Peer Review and review of the changes since then. Note that I am not a follower of baseball, so I may have missed some improper use of terms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I've been interested in the articles process towards FA after I saw talk about it being up for April Fools. And seeing the final result really makes it worthy of hanging that bronze star in its page, imo. GamerPro64 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank both of you for your comments and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (1b/c/d) – does not present a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. This topic has been examined in several academic journals which should be addressed.
  • The article currently dismisses the anti-homosexual angle, with an uncited 'some activists suggest it was' countered by cited quotes from a singer and the organizer saying 'no it wasn't'. This is not balanced. Please state who found it discriminatory and why. For example "Discophobia: antigay prejudice and the 1979 backlash against disco by Frank, Gillian. Journal of the History of Sexuality, ISSN 1043-4070, 2007, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp. 276 – 306" provides such an analysis.
  • "Social activists have suggested that the backlash to disco was motivated in part by prejudice against a sound which had non-white origins." – should probably be cited. Did anybody activist in particular say it was racist, or just some people?
  • "widely credited...with dealing disco its death blow" there are much more reliable, respected authorities to cite this notion to other than The Ancient Aliens History Channel. --maclean (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've found that article on JSTOR and one more, I'll work to integrate the info in and then will ask you to revisit. Regarding the social activists, that's what the source said, but I'll see now if I can improve it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've made a fairly major addition to the article to cover these points, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness.

• FN8: italics
• FN22: punctuation
• Fn25: page? italics?
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
• Special:BookSources/978–1–57860–335–8 returns error
• Further reading: italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Got those, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Reaction and aftermath: The spaced em dash in the Gaynor quote could be turned into something more MoS-friendly. We are allowed to make cosmetic changes like this in quotes, if I'm not mistaken.
• The publisher of reference 19 should be italicized as a print publication.
• Page number is needed for ref 44. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Now that those little fixes are done with, I think the article comfortably meets FA requirements. I've always considered the topic to be good for laughs, but it was interesting to see the social ramifications behind it. Nice job. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I think the lead has some redundancies and could do with a once-over (e.g. "With the playing surface damaged both by the explosion and by the rowdy fans, the White Sox were required to forfeit Game 2 of the doubleheader to the Tigers." and " The field was then deemed unplayable, forcing the White Sox to forfeit the second game.")

Tweaked. I think it's impossible to avoid mentioning it twice but I made them as different as possible.

• "The sound known as disco" - I'm not sure about the word choice; would "genre" or "style" fit better?

Genre.

• " According to Andy Behrens in his article on Disco Demolition Night for ESPN, Dahl and Meier "organized the Cohos around a simple and surprisingly powerful idea: Disco Sucks"." Is it necessary to say "in his article on Disco Demolition Night"? Why not "According to Andy Behrens of ESPN, Dahl and Meier…"

Done

• "described disco in profane terms" - any salacious quotes?

The source does not say. Given public profanity was more unusual then, it could have been just "Disco sucks" but there were probably more explicit signs too.

• Why do the estimates of injuries vary? Some more detail on that would be helpful.

There were definitely injuries, if only from thrown records. Probably because of the lack of a central authority compiling statistics. I could get into the specifics of the (relatively minor) injuries, but it seems a distraction at that point in the article.

• Otherwise, I think this is a well-written, well-sourced article. I'll be happy to support soon. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made changes as indicated, or explained otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

All that works for me. Nice work. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the review. To delegate: three four supports, image check done by Crisco, source check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• 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) 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.