This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
Victor L. King is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
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.
... 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?
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)