Template:Did you know nominations/Victor L. King
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Victor L. King
- ... that Victor L. King employed only black people from the South in 1917 at his new chemical plant in New Jersey to "prevent the entrance into the organization of any enemy aliens" during World War I?
- Reviewed:
Engineerchange (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC).
- I'll review this nomination. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
There is a 'citation needed' tag that needs to be resolved before the nomination can be approved. The quote that is used in the hook needs a reference immediately after it. I checked the source and it is accurately represented. Usually I would fix it myself, but I'll leave it to you, User:Engineerchange, as the three references may refer to different parts of the preceding text and I didn't want to break the attribution by duplicating just the one.
The bit about King getting two PhDs was a little unclear to me; perhaps it would be worth changing the order of the information so that you say he got two PhDs first and then where from. That's a minor bit and isn't holding up the nomination.
A spot check against the 'Who's who', the obituary in The Courier-News, and Dyes Made in America didn't turn up any problems with copyright etc or WP:V. I noticed that 'Who's who' and the obituary contained two different given names for his wife: Mary Ruegger (WW) and Eugenie (nee Ruegger) (obit). I'm guessing it's the same person as they have the same surname and in different situations she went by Mary or Eugenie. Is this addressed by any of the sources you've come across? It might be worth mentioning the different in a footnote even if there isn't a solution at the moment. Similarly, it would be interesting to note how Mary/Eugenie was related to Charles R. Ruegger – again that isn't holding up the nomination, just something that would be good to address at some point.
I have made two small edits to the article which you may like to check. Overall, an interesting article and well researched. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell: I've resolved most of your comments: removed citation needed given I actually found that Wood-Ridge is a place (the father-in-law was from there, so makes sense); clarified the citations around the quotation as requested; cited marriage and father-in-law full name (I think "Mary" is wrong in the one cite, not sure if a footnote is necessary for one cite, but wouldn't mind some help there if you disagree). I'm stuck on the two PhDs thing, I haven't done extensive research to find an additional cite to clarify, but I do think I've combed the lion's share of available sources. Thanks for reviewing and the kind words! Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Error seems likely, so trusting the obituary as it's more focused seems reasonable. All clear here, so I'm marking this as approved. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)