Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager

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: rejected by SL93 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Per issues raised.

DYK toolbox

Hawkstone Lager

(
)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Reviewing...new enough, QPQ provided, no copyvio issues. @The C of E:... is there an image? Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Whispyhistory: I didn't upload one because I wasn't sure on the copyright status of the logo due to the H on it being different. I wasn't sure if it made was eligible for not reaching the threashold of originality for text. I can upload it if you think it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I had the same thought as I can upload one too...may be someone else knows. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hook in article followed by inline citation to source with hook info.... I uploaded an image... add if you like..probably ok for article but not for dyk and you can probably do a better one. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

- Re-opened WT:DYK. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A new hook will need to be used; the original one has been vetoed by me, as noted at WT:DYK#For fuck's sake. (There is a suggestion there for using the Birmingham/Spain banned advertisement as the subject of an alternate hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: What was factually wrong with it? ALT1 ... that an advert for Hawkstone Lager made using ingredients from Jeremy Clarkson's farm, was banned because it contained Clarkson drinking the beer in the morning before work? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The question you should be asking is "What was wrong with it?", but that should have been obvious from the WT:DYK discussion. Since it apparently wasn't: Aside from the fact that you have filled in the asterisks from the source, the main problem is with your tone-deaf attempt to unnecessarily put profanity on the main page, which is a perfectly valid and reasonable use of the veto. (ALT1 has promise, though I'm pretty sure that the advert wasn't made using the farm ingredients, but rather the lager itself. How about an ALT1a that's clearer in its wording?) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that The C of E is now indefinitely topic-banned from DYK, someone else will need to do ALT1a. Another possibility could be a hook about how the original name was "Lager McLagerface", which was vetoed for not having a premium feel. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Giving this a shot:
ALT2 ... that Hawkstone Lager was originally planned to be called "Lager McLagerface", but the name was rejected for not conveying a premium image?
The issue right now is that the sentence is currently uncited in the article (the nearest reference to it, [1], doesn't mention it); however, other sources do mention it, such as [2] and The Times). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This product is being promoted in an unconventional way – see guerilla advertising and viral marketing. Featuring the product in any way on the main page would be participation in the campaign, helping to amplify the buzz that it's trying to generate. While the campaign is running, there is therefore no way to promote the hook without promoting the product and so violating supplementary rule F10. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT3 ... that a new beer was originally planned to be called "Lager McLagerface", but the brand name was rejected for failing to convey a premium image? Source: Is Jeremy Clarkson's new lager the best beer in the world? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The source for ALT3 is Jeremy Clarkson himself who is not reliable in this matter because of his conflict of interest and the meta nature of the topic. This daft name was obviously intended to attract attention and free publicity so we shouldn't fall so easily for it. Clarkson normally works with a production team and his supposed ad libs and accidents are often rehearsed and scripted. And most beer advertising is fantasy – "probably the best beer in the world"; "Guinness is good for you"; "refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach" – so we should not present such fabrications as fact. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I will have to disagree on this one. The source is indeed Clarkson, but those came from interviews covered in reliable sources. In this case, I'm willing to assume good faith that he was telling the truth and not making stuff up just for the sake of advertising. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources for DYK articles and hooks as long as they are uncontroversial information that is unlikely to have been made up. Indeed, if there were any concerns that the article or hook was an advertisement, ALT3 already solves these concerns by not mentioning the beer by name. Also, saying that all beer advertising is fantasy as a reason to oppose the nomination is invoking WP:OSE, and what we're discussing here is if the hook meets DYK requirements, not if it is fantasy or not. The hook should stand or fall on its own merits, not by being compared to other beer adverts. I would suggest a different editor take a look at this and either accept or reject the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarkson has made such a career out of saying and doing outrageous things that we even have an article about them. The assume-good-faith principle is not there to give a free pass to absurd advertising claims made by someone who is so clearly not reliable or independent. Not even close. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew on this - Clarkson is a prankster, and his word cannot be taken at face value. Suggested alt:
There's at least three problems with this.
  1. The sourcing is inadequate, being stuff like Grand Tour Nation, which is a fan site and so neither independent nor reliable.
  2. The hook describes this as Jeremy Clarkson's beer. The legal ownership of the brand is unclear but it seems quite clear that the production is all being done by the Cotswold Brewing Company on a different farm and the website says "Hawkstone is the brainchild of Jeremy Clarkson and Rick and Emma from the Cotswold Brew Co. ... He was introduced to Rick and Emma from the Cotswold Brewery by the landlord at their local and they hit it off immediately. Like Jeremy, they’re committed to supporting local agriculture but they’re not just good people, they’re also excellent brewers. They created Hawkstone Lager - a brew of such exquisite quality that Jeremy decided to invest." So, the beer is the work of Rick and Emma while Clarkson is one of several investors. He is also said to grow the barley used but elsewhere we read that this goes through middlemen and so that aspect is rather indirect.
  3. If we are to believe the story, then the Advertising Standards Authority banned the slogans on the grounds that they were not in the public interest, promoting alcoholism, for example. Why are we then repeating this improper advertising for free and hyping it further by putting it on the front page? We have a fairly clear policy and DYK rule banning advertising too.
Andrew🐉(talk) 12:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Good catch on the grandtournation link - I hadn't taken a close look at the sources when I proposed the above hook, but now that I have, I notice that there doesn't seem to be a source to confirm that these ads were actually banned by the ASA - quite likely they were just fake ads made by Clarkson to garner some publicity. So it looks like that hook is out too. I haven't followed up on your assertion that it's not actually Clarkson's beer, but if that's correct, the article may contain too many errors to be run anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Is ALT3 really unsuitable or could it still be used if there's no remaining option? If there are just too many concerns and there are no suitable facts yet then yes unfortunately the nomination may need to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Tracking my interest in this topic, Google puts this video in my YouTube feed. Notice that it was posted by Grand Tour Nation but appears to be another advert. It's all about selling (or giving away) beer, right? Untangling the actual facts from the hype still seems too difficult at this time. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As I said above, ALT3 is not viable in my view because it states as fact a claim made by Clarkson. Other than that, I think the article just contains too many factual misstatements; it says Clarson "made" and "brewed" the beer himself when it appears he just supplied the barley and a local brewer did the brewing, it says he intended to call the beer "Lager McLagerface" but that is only a claim not an established fact, and it says the ASA banned his first three ads when none of the sources support that. These misstatements do not inspire confidence in the rest of the article. So unless somebody wants to correct the existing misstatements and check the article for other errors, I think this one will have to be failed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • marking nomination for closure due to the multiple concerns listed above which have not been addressed and not likely to be salvaged. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)