- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
TWG Tea edit
... that the Singapore-based TWG Tea is described as the "world's finest luxury tea brand"?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 06:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
You should include links to this article in other related articles; currently there is none. The proposed hook sounds a bit promotional. Cambalachero (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I also dont like this hook, not for being promotional, but for being some news reporter's opinion. Maybe something based on 1837 can be framed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's a joker removing the negative aspects of the company (the lawsuits) and turning the article into an advertisement. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that while the year 1837 is inscribed on TWG Tea's logo, it was founded in 2008? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The second hook is acceptable Cambalachero (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that while the year 1837 is inscribed on TWG Tea's logo, it was founded in 2008? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's a joker removing the negative aspects of the company (the lawsuits) and turning the article into an advertisement. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I also dont like this hook, not for being promotional, but for being some news reporter's opinion. Maybe something based on 1837 can be framed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
My problem with the article is that it doesn't come right out and say what FN9 does: that TWG Tea was found to have violated the trademark in Hong Kong of the other company. Also, the source, which is just about a week old, said that the judge would rule on the penalties in the case the following day. What were the penalties? Articles need to be reasonably complete, and omitting so much of the information about this case, such as its final ruling and penalties, means it isn't ready yet. I like ALT1, and would have picked it just now if the article was ready. (You may not need to give the name of "a judge" here, but make it clear that this is the judge ruling on the trademark suit.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good. Thanks for updating; even if the judge did postpone the penalties hearing so that information isn't yet ready, we now know that an appeal has been filed. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)