Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph E. Brock
- 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 Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ralph E. Brock
,_African_American_forester.png)
Ralph E. Brock, c. 1903
- ... that Ralph E. Brock (pictured) was the first academically trained African-American forester in the United States? Source: https://paheritage.wpengine.com/article/reviving-revising-reputation-ralph-elwood-brock/ "The Pennsylvania Negro Business Directory for 1910 identified him as “probably the only experienced forester of the colored race in Pennsylvania. He has spent a great deal of his time making a study of this very important question: how to preserve our forests.”"
Created by Topshelver (talk). Nominated by MyCatIsAChonk (talk) at 23:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ralph E. Brock; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Article not created by MyCatIsAChonk and the fact, while spelt out as such in the article, is not directly supported by the quotation provided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Credits updated :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: I realize I forgot to attribute the creator, and I apologize. On the topic of sourcing, here's two more sources that link to the claim in the article: a Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine article and another magazine article from the Forest History Society. I've cited these in the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: Is there anything else you would like me to do? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: I realize I forgot to attribute the creator, and I apologize. On the topic of sourcing, here's two more sources that link to the claim in the article: a Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine article and another magazine article from the Forest History Society. I've cited these in the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Credits updated :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@MyCatIsAChonk: I am terribly sorry–I must have missed your first ping. Please bear with me a moment. Again, my sincerest apologies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Issues resolved. Thank you for your patience. My goodness, I'm terribly sorry I had you waiting. Thank you for pinging me now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: @Pbritti and Topshelver: @Pbritti and MyCatIsAChonk: it has a high Copyvio score. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: Apologies for my not mentioning it in the initial assessment: I saw those scores and made the assessment that the majority of those positives were based on terms and names that exist in both the article and sources. Some terms, such as dates and job titles, are arguably able to be easily paraphrased but I similarly made the judgement that they were not copyvios. If you disagree, I'll take some time this weekend to fix that. I'm currently on something a roadtrip so if I don't make requested corrections by Monday UTC please ping me again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightburst and Pbritti: I've reworded some things under "Forestry and gardening career" to ensure there's no possible copyvios. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightburst and Pbritti: I've reworded some things under "Forestry and gardening career" to ensure there's no possible copyvios. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: Apologies for my not mentioning it in the initial assessment: I saw those scores and made the assessment that the majority of those positives were based on terms and names that exist in both the article and sources. Some terms, such as dates and job titles, are arguably able to be easily paraphrased but I similarly made the judgement that they were not copyvios. If you disagree, I'll take some time this weekend to fix that. I'm currently on something a roadtrip so if I don't make requested corrections by Monday UTC please ping me again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: @Pbritti and Topshelver: @Pbritti and MyCatIsAChonk:
