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 — Maile (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• ... that during a meal at the Hare and Billet, Jim Dowd MP mistook Henderson's Relish (pictured) for a "blatant copy" of Lea & Perrins Worcester Sauce?

• ALT1: ... that during a meal at the Hare and Billet, Jim Dowd MP mistook Henderson's Relish (pictured) for a "blatant copy" of Lea & Perrins Worcester Sauce and subsequently raised a question about it during a debate on intellectual property rights in the House of Commons?

Created by SheffGruff (talk). Self nominated at 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC).

• Note: Jim Dowd (politician) has already been rejected in a previous nomination for insufficient expansion, and there's been no further expansion since then. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Pubs are pretty common in the UK, and I have notability concerns about the Hare and Billet article. Most of the mentions in the citations are rather trivial. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hare and Billet is at AfD, and should wait until the currently discussion is closed. As Mandarax notes, Jim Dowd (politician) is not eligible for DYK due to lack of a 5x expansion. The Dowd article's best bet is to be listed as a Good Article and then nominated within five days of the listing. Dowd can be kept in the hook, but without a bolded article. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• The AfD discussion for Hare and Billet has been closed as no consensus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• This needs a new hook that does not include the bolded "Jim Dowd" article (it can be wikilinked and unbolded); a hook along the current lines could be made more effective by adding that he raised a question in Parliament over the matter. I have removed the Dowd article from this template. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

*ALT2: ... that the Hare and Billet pub was mistakenly accused in the House of Commons of serving a "blatant copy" of Lea & Perrins Worcester Sauce?

new hook offered Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've renumbered the hooks, since SheffGruff had already offered an alt hook. SheffGruff's ALT1 had to be struck, since it was 265 characters, far over the maximum size allowed. I've renamed the Victuallers alt to ALT2, and added the required "?" at the end. However, the "pictured" for the ALT2 hook is problematic, because it isn't the Lea and Perrins that's pictured, it's the Henderson's, and it's more likely that people will think the referent is Lea and Perrins, not the supposed blatant copy of same. (Side note: in the U.S., the Lea and Perrins is known by the proper name, Worcestershire Sauce, not Worcester Sauce.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed and intricate criticism of the hook you requested BM. The simple solution is to remove the (pictured) even though I'm not convinced by the quandary you identify... I have however removed the pictured. I have lost interest in taking this further. Victuallers (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• ALT2a: ... that the Hare and Billet pub was mistakenly accused in the House of Commons of serving a "blatant copy" (pictured) of Lea & Perrins Worcester sauce?

  Personally, I prefer not using all the extra links, but I just followed the convention used here. The image (which I like much better than the tightly cropped one which was originally here) is not in the article; it will have to be added if it's to be used for the hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• ALT2a looks good. Article is long enough and new enough, adequately footnoted, no copyvio or other policy issues. QPQ not required. The hook fact checks out. Because the image cannot be used unless it is in the article, I added it to the article. I think the image license is good, unless there are issues with photos of commercial products in the UK. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)