Talk:Boost Drinks/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(Untitled)

Information about the nutritions contents of the other products will be added soon Fethroesforia 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Boost Banner.jpg

Image:Boost Banner.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Pamzeis (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that Boost Drinks was originally known as Blast UK Limited?~~ Source: 1
- ALT1: ... that Boost Drinks sold a limited edition grape and cherry flavour known as Cosmic Glow? Source: 2
- ALT2: ... that Boost Drinks is the official energy drinks partner of Leeds United? Source: 3
- ALT3: ... that Boost Drinks attempted to introduce smoothies alongside their energy drinks range but the response was disappointing and it was soon abandoned? Source: 4
- ALT4: ... that Boost Drinks is in charge of the sales and marketing of soft drinks brand Rio? Source: 5
- ALT5: ... that Boost Drinks, which primarily sells energy and sports drinks, introduced an iced coffee range in 2020? Source: 6

5x expanded by Sahaib3005 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Sahaib3005: ALT0 is not interesting, ALT2 inadvertently sounds like an advert (WP:DYKNOT; it would require a rework if you want that hook). ALT1 is the one that reads OK. The article received a Boost and was nominated on time. Although your user page marks 3 DYKs, according to this, you need a QPQ. The copyvio detector says "36.3%" but it's just a quote. Everything else seems fine. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch:, I have now reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Something That May Shock and Discredit You. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC) I have also added more hooks. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

QPQ done. Newers ALTs reviewed. I found ALT5 to be the most interesting, followed by 4, 3 and 1. 2 is still the hookiest, but it needs not to sound like something you would hear while watching a match. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sahaib3005 I have pulled this from prep 5 for further discussion per issues about interestingness and promotional content that was brought up on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we actually sure this business is notable? Nearly every source seems like it could have been written from a press release, and most of them are niche industry publications. The two that are from the Times and Yorkshire Post are about the company CEO, not the company. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:, Boost is the UK's second largest energy drinks brand. (Sources 1, 2, 3) Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sahaib3005, then there should be coverage about the company rather than simply short reports of their financial statuses, hires, backers, price increases, distribution deals, sponsorships, etc. There should be coverage of the company, their history, etc. Non-industry/non-local media should be talking about them. Are there three of these sources you'd point to as significant coverage that isn't just local/industry niche publications? —valereee (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pushing ourselves to place our currency where our food-opening lies, i'd say that if we don't think it's notable, we should be considering pushing it through AfD and reconvening when it's over. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron I'm having a hard time doing a reasonable WP:BEFORE because there's a major brand of nutritional drinks in the US that is also named Boost; it's at Boost (drink). When I search, most of what I come up with is this other company. I was hoping Sahaib, who is in the UK, might have better luck finding actual significant coverage, but yeah, at this point I'm not seeing notability. The simple fact a company is the second-biggest in their category isn't enough, and the sources given above for that don't even look like RS. Foodbevg.com is an online directory, imagecreativeuk.com is the company's design agency, and onlinecashandcarry.com is an online retailer. We can AfD it to get other opinions; maybe others will disagree with me. But maybe Sahaib can quickly find some significant coverage of the company? —valereee (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm, it's already been AfD'd once, and that was before the recent additions. I'm not going to push it any further, but man there's a lot of bad sourcing in this article. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue to, to be honest—but I'm not finding any coverage, ambiguity or otherwise. I might take this to AfD myself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: yeah, i think there's enough to go to AfD—i'm not certain the outcome's going to be delete, but at least that concern's dismissed one way or another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sahaib3005, Valereee, and Theleekycauldron: the AfD closed as "no consensus". Pamzeis (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sahaib3005: I really am sorry for the way I've chosen to hold this nomination up, it's dragging on much longer than i ever meant it to—but with the notability requirement settled, we can circle back to the original question of promotionality. I'm not sure we have a great hook or article in terms of puffery here—what do you want to do? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, unless someone objects, I think it is best to close the dyk nomination because of the promotional concerns. Sahaib3005 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I guess that would mean it's withdrawn? I can't find any guidelines on how to close a withdrawn nomination so I'll just hope I did this right. Revert me if I mess something up. Pamzeis (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

removing links?

@Sahaib3005, why are you removing the links in the refs? Those are helpful to let people know what kind of source they're looking at. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:Valereee, sorry about that, I just thought the red links made the article look bad. wikipedia:REDNOT states that articles that are unlikely to be created should not be red linked. You can add them back, if you want. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sahaib3005, it definitely doesn't make the article look good (which is a good reason to avoid using such sources if you can find the information in other places), but we aren't trying to make it look better than it is. If it's relying heavily on sources that don't have an article, that's valuable information for both other editors and for readers. But particularly while folks are trying to assess sources for proving notability, those redlinks show people that at minimum the source doesn't have an article so may need to be checked -- is it a blog? Does it appear to have editorial oversight? Is there some sort of masthead? I regularly put the sources into references, especially when I'm assessing the article for notability. I'm not sure REDNOT applies to references. The point of REDNOT is to prevent a distracting sea of red for no good reason within the article itself. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

redlinks in refs

Hey, @Guliolopez, re this edit, I feel like redlinking sources in the references is valuable. It lets readers either connect to article or see that the source has not yet got an article, in which case maybe we make one, or we decide it doesn't need one. Either way, knowing that Scottish Grocer has no article is valuable information for readers and other editors in assessing the sources. —valereee (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. In all honesty I'm not sure I understand the goal. If the goal in red-linking those sources is to prompt someone to create the article (for something that we feel might meet WP:NWEB), then that would likely align with WP:REDYES. ("Take care when creating a red link that [..] its subject meets notability guidelines for topics (including those for [..] web content (WP:WEB)".) If the goal in red-linking those sources is the exact opposite, to highlight that no such article exists (and may never exist), as a means of suggesting that a lack of notability implies a lack of reliability, then I'm not sure how that fits with RS or REDYES. Or any related guideline. (Certainly, to my eye, some of those references seem less reliable than others. The Times compared to businessfirstonline.co.uk or whatever. But I've never seen an argument or a discussion about using red-linking as a means of identifying or indicating potentially WP:QUESTIONABLE sources....) Guliolopez (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

For me it's all of the above, really. For certain industries or countries, we may be missing an article about a source that just needs someone more expert to know where to look for the proof that source is itself notable. For articles that are a sea of redlinked sources, we maybe consider whether the article subject itself is notable enough if the only place it's being discussed at length is in redlinked sources. For specific assertions within an article, if we look at the references and find that source is redlinked, we maybe investigate: do we need a better source for this assertion? Does the redlinked source appear to have editorial oversight? Does it even exist? For me it's additional information for editors and readers. —valereee (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boost Drinks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll review over the next few days. Mark83 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is not inspiring, but not 'bad'. A few tweaks needed e.g. on first mention the owners name is more important than his university (swap emphasis). Lead doesn't come close to summarising the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The layout of references is good. But serious concerns about the reliability of the vast majority of the sources - much of which have been written by the company itself (sponsored content). See summary below. Very surprised that no attempt has been made to improve this situation since serious concerns were raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boost Drinks (2nd nomination).

Boost Drinks sponsored the Proppa.com Honda team for the 2010 motocross season. - please check the factual accuracy of this as I can't find such a named team (from an admittedly quick search). The source is marketing material written by Boost.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (y):
Composition/ingredients? Reference to health concerns of such drinks?

I know more facts on this company from reading the sources than I do from reading the article; proof that there's work to do in covering all aspects of the topic. (But noting that a lot of the sources are also questionable!, so WP:RS to find.

Gray said in an interview that he wanted to take Boost to independent retailers because it would have been "crazy to challenge the big brands with a me-too product". -- this needs to be explained. Why does that make it not a "me-too product". And it's in supermarkets now I believe, so what changed?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Undue weight of marketing info. I'd take out the Afghanistan info, uncertain and feels like a bit of promotional info. The sourcing concerns are important for this criteria too (biased sources).
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I can't technically fail the article on this criteria, but I beg you to change the image. I would cringe to see the GA badge above it. i.e. show it in its can?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This feels like a rush to GA nomination. Major issue with the reliability of the sourcing, the vast majority of which is sourced from the company (directly or indirectly). And if this was all purely factual and NPOV that would be something we could discuss, but most of it is purely marketing and POV. (Examples in table below). I get that some are from RS and we can debate the merits of those, but unquestionably 15,16 & 17 and the associated text should have been removed when the concerns were raised at AFD at the very least.

Working on that will fix 4. NPOV.

And have a think about suggestion on broading coverage, i.e. composition and health concerns which contemporary articles have.

As noted the fact that I know more about the company from a thorough review of references shows we've missed some content.Mark83 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary of review of sources for reliability/verifiability.
Ref #	Comments
1	Company House Data – OK.
2	Concerns about WP:SIRS – an article largely based on interview with the owner and/or appears to be based on company marketing info.
3	Concerns about WP:SIRS – an article largely based on interview with the owner and/or appears to be based on company marketing info.
4	Concerns about WP:SIRS – an article largely based on interview with the owner and/or appears to be based on company marketing info. – The title and intro are hardly unbiased: “Yorkshire is the jewel in the UK's entrepreneurial crown; Throughout 2017, LDC is searching the entrepreneurial heartlands of England, Scotland and Wales as part of its Backing Business Ambition tour, to uncover and showcase Britain's most inspiring and ambitious businesses.”
5	OK.
6	Standard industry news article – OK.
7	Seems a bit more like straight news, but again concerning percentage of the article is direct quotes from the owner. May as well be self published.
8	“Source: Boost Drinks”
9	Standard industry news article – OK. Majority company quotes though.
10	OK.
11	“Source: Boost” – Purely marketing.
12	Very company marketing-focused.
13	Standard industry news article – OK.
14	Standard industry news article – OK.
15	Very company marketing-focused. ““Boost is a strong challenger brand within its sector and shares similar values to the Club, we are looking forward to working with and supporting Boost on the next phase of its brand growth both in the UK and Internationally.” NPOV?
16	Purely marketing – written by the company, copy & paste of 17
17	Purely marketing – written by the company, copy & paste of 16
18	Purely marketing
19	Purely marketing
20	Purely marketing
21	Staff writer, but very company marketing focused. Exactly the same format as those tagged “Source: Boost Drinks”
22	Staff writer, but very company marketing focused. Exactly the same format as those tagged “Source: Boost Drinks”
23	Source: Boost Drinks
24	RS? “Boost has created two great tasting SKUs, using exclusive production techniques to ensure a smooth tasting, quality product.”

Mark83 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)