Template:Did you know nominations/Sweetings


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sweetings

 * ...that according to chef Fergus Henderson, drinking a Black Velvet at Sweetings "puts you in the mood for romance"?
 * ALT1: "...that gangster George Francis once tried to buy Sweetings with a suitcase full of £1 million?"
 * Reviewed: Tuck rule (ice hockey)

Created by Gareth E. Kegg (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg, the article is new (created on 23rd March) and long enough. It is also interesting. However, I am not convinced that the hook is verified by reliable sources, because it reads like an advertisement placed in a newspaper. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. An interview in the Evening Standard is certainly an RS. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a quote from an interview in a RS. If the implication is that the article is an advert, that's wrong too as it makes clear that the food is only average. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, I am not convinced that Evening Standard is a reliable source : it is a free newspaper, consequently it depends exclusively on advertisements. Furthermore, the terms of use of Evening Standard explicitly says: "The Website and the Content may only be used for your personal, non-commercial use. ... Except as set out above, you agree not to download, copy, reproduce, modify, store, archive, show in public, redistribute or commercially exploit in any way any part of the Content without the prior written permission of Standard.co.uk." Finally, are you sure that it is only at Sweeting where Black Velvet served puts me/us in the mood for romance? If this is not the case, why should we emphasize it on the main page of WP?  Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We are not putting it forward as a scientific claim! I don't think anyone is going to stop taking Viagra as a result. It's just a bit of fun and will be obvious to readers that it's probably just one man's opinion from the quotation marks which they can confirm by reading the article. This is a classic "quirky" hook for the end of the set of which there is a long tradition here. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is verified information? Do you think it is fully in line with the above qouted terms of use of Evening Standard? Borsoka (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. All newspapers rely on advertising for revenue. Is the New York Times or Guardian website no longer a reliable source? This is an interview, not an advert. 2. I'm referencing the article, not copying it. In fact, I'm actually driving traffic to their website by linking to it. The same with every other newspaper website link on WP. That has always been allowed. 3. It's a fun quote. I've quoted a man who said something frivolously. I'm not legally establishing the liquid boundaries of romance for all of us. The "fact" is in "quotation marks" as it is an opinion. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you for your comment. However, I still think the hook is not verified by an independent source and can be regarded as an advertisement of the restaurant. I am not sure that the main page of WP should be used for such purposes. Consequently, we now need another reviewer. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough and long enough. I tweeked the hook to attribute the quote. Article is well referenced and hook is correctly formatted. Article is neutral with complimentary quotes balanced by criticism that the atmosphere is better than the food. No pic to review. I have no concern that the hook might be seen as advertising as the quote is 1) clearly intended to be humorous 2) attributed to someone not connected to the restaurant 3) appears in a RS 4) balanced by the article content which sets it in context and includes positive and negative information about the restaurant. AGF on offline sources. A check revealed no close paraphrasing or copyvios. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, sorry, I think, an editor who has not been involved in the above discussion should decide, and you was involved. I am still convinced that the main page of WP should not be used for advertisement: the hook is not balanced. Furthermore, I am still not convinced that the hook is fully in line with the terms of use of Evening Standard , stating "The Website and the Content may only be used for your personal, non-commercial use. ... Except as set out above, you agree not to download, copy, reproduce, modify, store, archive, show in public, redistribute or commercially exploit in any way any part of the Content without the prior written permission of Standard.co.uk." Furthermore, are you sure that all restaurants which are mentioned in a free newspaper should be presented on the main page of WP? Since I still think that Evening Standard cannot be described as a reliable source in the context, I sought community assistance here , and here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 April 2016
 * There is no rule that the reviewer cannot contribute to the discussion as far as I know. On the contrary, reviewers often debate the nomination (as you did above). Your other comments are without foundation for the reasons mentioned above. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, reviewers can contribute. I also understand that you think that the hook would not be an advertisement for the restaurant on the main page of WP. However, my other comments have not been refuted. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg – The article is fine, but this hook is just someone's personal opinion, not factual information, which is the scope of DYK. A better hook would be "...that the gangster George Francis once tried to buy Sweetings with a suitcase full of £1 million?" or "...that chef Fergus Henderson proposed to his wife at Sweetings, a historic London restaurant?" Ibadibam (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thankee Ibadibam, I've proposed your ALT hook. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the alt but I think it needs revising as the claim to have tried to buy the restaurant with £1M is 1) fanciful and possibly exaggerated (I don't think it likely that Francis would have paid £1M for a fish restaurant, though he may have offered to do so out of bravado) 2) based on one source who got it second-hand. How about that "gangster George Francis once tried to buy Sweetings with a suitcase full of cash?" Philafrenzy (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the Alt further but if any admins are watching, I confirm my tick of the original hook stands, possibly for the last "quirky" slot where I think it would be entirely appropriate. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)