Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Darth Stabro (talk · contribs) 05:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darth Stabro, I'll review this soon. Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll see if I can get to addressing these issues over the weekend. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead:

• Can you mention when it was built? You mention when it closed, but not when it opened.  Done
• Similarly, I feel like it would be beneficial to mention something about the architecture somewhere in the lead. Currently, the lead talks about the building's location, history, and a quote about the building, but nothing about the architecture itself. I suggest at least adding the architectural style, architects, and maybe the floor count.  Done

Brewery:

• Para 1: German immigrant John Orth built a brewery on the current site of Marshall St. and 13th Ave. NE in 1850. - In the lead, you spell out Street, Avenue, and Northeast, but you've abbreviated them here. I'd either spell them or abbreviate them consistently.  Done
• Para 1: Is the "1862 federal brewing tax" same as the Revenue Act of 1862?  Done
• Para 1: came together to create - Personally I'd say "jointly created"; however, the current wording is fine.  Done
• Para 1: Now that I think of it, since the brewing tax was passed in 1862, was there any information about why it took nearly 3 decades for Orth to decide to build a new brewery?  Done
• Para 2: the brewery front features four distinct sections, reminiscent of the four companies that merged to create the brewery - Did each company get its own section, or was this purely symbolic?  Done
• Para 2: However, with competition from larger, national breweries proving to be too competitive - This is repetitive, as the sentence says "competitive" twice. I'd change the second one to "excessive" or something similar.  Done
• Para 2: financial straights - This should be "financial straits".  Done
• Besides the 1904 renovation, were there any other modifications to the building?  Done

Preservation and renovation:

• Para 1: Its historic status caused the City of Minneapolis - Would it be better to clarify that this specifically refers to the government of Minneapolis?  Done
• Para 1: Its historic status caused the City of Minneapolis to deny permits for its demolition on two occasions, once in 1977 and once in 1986. - This is an interesting detail that might warrant some further explanation. Specifically, do the sources mention why the building was marked for demolition in 1977? Given the length of the Brewery section, you don't need to go into too much detail, but a sentence or two would help. (The 1986 demolition is mentioned further down in the paragraph, so no action is needed in that respect.)  Done
• Para 2: While the city had previously declined a donation of the building due to the predicted operating costs, Minneapolis purchased the building in 1989 for $4.85 million - Any details on what made them change their mind?  Done
• Para 2: Two of the last three sentences begin with "However". I would change one of these "Howevers" to make it slightly less repetitives.  Done
• Para 3: A deal with Aveda seemed near in early 1997, but by the end of the year that one also fell through - Do the sources say why? You mention the reason the Guthrie Theater theater fell through.
• Para 4: By May 2000, a proposal was in place where Ryan Companies would purchase the brewhouse for $1 - I would clarify that this was a nominal fee.  Done
• Para 4: The sale went through in May 2001 - I suggest "was finalized" in lieu of "went through".

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Structure:

• I'm surprised that there is nothing about the interior of the building in this section. Can some info about this be added? It doesn't have to be much; a few sentences are sufficient.

• Unfortunately I really can't find much on it, other than their purposes below. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Did the four sections have separate uses? (I also asked above whether each section was for a separate company; this is related to that point.)  Done
• Where are the sections in relation to each other? You mention the northeasternmost section, but not the relative locations of the second, third, or fourth sections. The paragraph does say that the fifth section is on the fourth section's southern wall, but a casual reader may not know where the fourth section is.
  • Is there any info on where each section is located in relation to each other? If so, please add it to the article, but I understand if there isn't any info on this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Darth Stabro, I looked at the source and it seems like they do kind of give the locations of each section:

• Section 1: on Marshall Street and 13th Avenue NE
• Section 2: Within the brew house courtyard
• Section 3: directly south of the brew house
• Section 4: directly across Marshall Street from the 1904 malt elevator (i.e. east of Section 1, from the looks of it, but please correct me if I'm wrong)
• Section 5: Located across 13th Avenue (i.e. north of Section 1)

Once these clarifications are made, I'll be happy to pass this as a GA. It would be for the best if you were to able to get to this by Sunday. Otherwise, I won't be able to promote this GAN for a few weeks as I am going on vacation at that time. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest linking architectural terminology such as hipped roofs, lintels, segmental arch, semicircular window, semicircular arch, parapet, and corbeled.  Done

Historic District:

• Where are these buildings in relation to the main building? North, south, east, west?  Done

See also:

• Not required, however I would recommend linking the NRHP list in which this building is mentioned (National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, Minnesota).  Done

– Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Got to most of these over the last few days. Will get at the rest of them on Monday or so probably. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro, sounds good, thanks for letting me know. Ironically, I was about to post here to remind you about this. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I believe I've checked into all of the above points. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro, thanks for the update. I will look at this tomorrow, but in the meantime, there is one thing above that hasn't been addressed yet. Epicgenius (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref numbers as of this revision.

• As a general note, there are some references that use "pp." to refer to a single page; for instance, ref 9 (Guenther, robert (August 5, 1977). "City brewery safe... for awhile". The Minneapolis Star. pp. 9A. Retrieved January 24, 2025.) uses "pp. 9A" rather than "p. 9A". I realize that this is done automatically via VisualEditor, but I would consider changing these plural |pages= to singular |page=.
• The author's first name for Ref 9 needs to be capitalized.

I will select five sources to randomly spot-check later. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

• 3 ("Beer for Next Summer". The Saint Paul Globe. June 21, 1891. p. 9. Retrieved January 24, 2025.) - Checks out.
• 7 ("Around Minnesota". The Minneapolis Star. May 5, 1975. pp. 12B.) - Checks out.
• 8 ("Grain Belt Breweries to be sold for $4.1 million". The Duluth Herald. Associated Press. April 29, 1975. p. 10. Retrieved January 24, 2025.) - Checks out.
• 15 ("Renewing the old". Star Tribune. November 12, 2000. pp. D1. Retrieved January 24, 2025.) - Checks out.
• 17 ("Briefs". Star Tribune. May 11, 2001. pp. D3.) - Checks out.

All looks good with regards to spot checks. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are appropriately licensed.
• There are no copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns. There are a few common phrases that Earwig's copyvio detector picked up, but these are not of major concern.

– Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]