Talk:Blackrocks Brewery

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: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a fence running around Blackrocks Brewery is decorated with hundreds of used skis? Source: "Surrounding the property are hundreds of old skis nailed to the fence like insistent vines." [1]
  • ALT1:... that Blackrocks Brewery is the second largest brewery in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan? Source: See the Keweenaw Brewing and Blackrocks sections here
  • ALT2:... that Blackrocks Brewery was created by two unemployed pharmaceutical salesmen? Source: "The two former pharmaceutical salesmen said if either of them lost their jobs, they would start the brewery." [2]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Wallace (RAF officer)

Created/expanded by The ed17 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough. The article itself is cited, neutral, and does not contain noticable copyvios from reading the cited article and Earwigs. AGF for sentences where only the Magnaghi source is provided. Hook 1's "hundreds of used skis" is a bit unclear in terms of the actual number of skis: the source seems to imply hundreds as in "a lot of skis", while the hook seems to imply the literal meaning of hundred. I personally prefer ALT2 since the two seeminng unrelated fields makes the hook more interesting.

• Thanks, Ganbaruby! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 02:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Looks promising at a glance. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

It's very good already. The only issues are quite minor:

• In the lead, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is linked while the Lower Peninsula of Michigan is not.
• "424 N. Third Street" should be spelled out in the first use.
• "Recognition and beer" could probably just be "Recognition".
• Shouldn't the "Endnotes" section be renamed "References" and the "References" section be renamed "Further reading"? I'm a little confused why it's organized this way.
• It's up to you, but consider linking — either externally or wikilinking — the sites that provided the sources cited.
• The Mining Journal is occasionally referenced as just Mining Journal.

Excellent work. I will await your reply. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I only noticed after posting my initial review, but the logo should have a caption, perhaps stating when it was adopted. Placing on hold now. Good luck. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: Apologies for the delay here! All of these should be addressed except for "recognition and beer". I used that section header because it includes both the ranked coverage of their beer and a short list of their year-round beers. On the logo, as far as I know there's no source that directly says when it was introduced, but it's been in use since the brewery opened. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. It looks like it's in good enough shape now. Congrats! An anonymous username, not my real name 21:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

Pre-FAC review as promised.

• Looking at the sources first. What makes the following reliable?
  • marquettemagazine.com -- Per the note at the end of the story it was owned and run by one person at the time the story appeared, though it now seems to be corporately owned.
  • growlermag.com
• I see the only source for the details on the notable beers table is the brewery itself. If that's so, are those details truly worth including? Should we just list the beers identified as notable by other sources rather than add these details?

Will do a prose review next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "This practice expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people were forbidden from congregating indoors, to campfires and tents": suggest "During the COVID-19 pandemic, when people were forbidden from congregating indoors, they added campfires and tents."
• "the taproom-adjacent property at": can we just say "the property next door at"?
• "They also built in a proper stage for musical acts": I don't think you need "proper".
• "The city commission required Blackrocks to add noise dampening around that patio": I was wondering about zoning and how they got permission to put a bar in a residential neighbourhood. Is there more information about that?
• Can we get a link for "fermentor"? Perhaps to Brewing#Fermentation methods?
• "gave patrons a custom large ceramic mug which are hung in the taproom" number mismatch between subject and verb.
• "The mugs held a greater quantity of beer that would be sold at the regular price": if I understand this correctly, how about "The mugs held more beer than the glasses given to patrons without mugs, but could be filled at the same price"?
• Any more details available about the golden ticket? I'm not quite clear how that works or what one would have to find.

Generally looks pretty good. It's very short, but I think it covers the material appropriately. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Christie. Really, really appreciate these thorough thoughts.

• Marquette Magazine: Good question. I'm realizing that I confused Marquette Magazine with Marquette Monthly, which is a longstanding little magazine published and distributed locally on paper (in addition to online these days). I believe the only info Marquette Magazine supported was the exact opening date, so I removed it as that's covered by Magnaghi.
• Growler's pandemic closure was covered by a variety of regional news sources, e.g. the Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press, so I treated this as an established outlet for the purposes of RS.

  I think that's probably OK, but it may come up again at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Campfires and tents: fixed
• Property next door: fixed. There was a thought I had around distinguishing that property from the canning building, but the context around that sentence makes it very clear what we're referring to.
• Proper stage: fixed
• Noise dampening: I lived in Marquette, so I personally know that noise has been a concern in the surrounding neighborhood. The brewery is located on a local commercial corridor, and you can see all the other stores aligned north/south on Google Maps/similar + that just about everything west and east of it is residential. But strangely, the only other source I could find was a one I removed the other day. It's probably borderline reliable in the sense that the person running it back then was an established journalist before starting that blog (and that blog was referenced in local news outlets), but I didn't think I could prove that under Wikipedia's definition, let alone FAC's. I'd welcome your thoughts on if there's a better way to handle this, as I'm at a dead end.

  No problem, I was just checking to see if more info was available, but it's fine as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Fermentor: done
• Ceramic mug: fixed
• Golden tickets: It's a literal golden ticket that they hide on public land and give clues to on social media. A treasure hunt for adults, basically. I've added a few extra details. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixes are good; I commented on a couple. I don't think you responded re the question about the table of beers? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Whoops, I missed that line! I originally had those beers named in the prose, but that many of them over a few sentences felt like a lot. I ended up taking the table idea from Bell's Brewery#Beers. I could drop the ABV/IBU fields and everything in the notes column except "discontinued"? (The styles are effectively all covered in the secondary sources.) Or it could go back to prose? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I think we can keep the table if the brewery itself is only the source for some of the details, and those columns seem fine to source to the brewery. Do the other sources identify these beers as notable in some way, as opposed to simply mentioning them in passing? I'm asking if we can justify this table specifically as "these are the notable beers", rather than just ones that happen to have been mentioning in passing in third party reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I see! I'd say 5–9 are mentioned in passing in 1–2 sources max, particularly this MLive article, and under that standard could be removed. (And I've done so.) Grand Rabbits/Coconut Brown have also gotten brief attention, but in many more sources because they were standouts and widely distributed early on. 51K, Mykiss, and Honey Lav have gotten more descriptive write-ups, especially the last one there. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I think this looks ready to nominate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I am incredibly grateful for the time you spent on this. Thanks, Mike! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)