Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eunice Newton Foote/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2022 [1].

---

Eunice Newton Foote

Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the first known scientist to link warming CO₂ with climate change. She was also one of the signers of the Declaration of Sentiments at the first conference ever held (1848) to solely focus on women's rights. Her story was lost until uncovered by women academics who initiated women's studies programs and then ignored again until a retired geologist rediscovered her scientific contributions in 2011 in the digital age. Much controversy surrounded substantiating her contributions to science because scientific historians believed that John Tyndall had been the first to note the phenomena of global warming. Her 200th birthday in 2019 sparked massive media coverage about her and last week the BBC did a feature podcast about her.

Notes on sourcing: Primary does not equate to bad or unreliable. Because it was impossible to know if the information contained in modern sources was repeating mistakes of other press, I verified in primary records contemporaneous to her life, all details regarding her biography given in sourcing. The links that appear as red highlights (if you have that gadget installed) with one exception meet our criteria for limited use of primary sourcing, i.e. anyone can verify without original research or conclusion that they state simple facts and were created by government entities who were not likely to be promoting or misstating information. The one exception is an article written by Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and posted on Facebook. It meets our criteria (WP:selfpub) for inclusion because she has published elsewhere and is a noted expert on climate. For the science, because it is outside my area of expertise, and because it wasn't well understood in her day, I used modern analysis to confirm her contributions and sought assistance from @XOR'easter and Ipigott: to confirm that it was represented correctly. Further improvements were made through the suggestions of Gog the Mild during the GA review. SusunW (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• No link for "women's rights campaigners"?

• linked.

• "During Newton's tenure". Is "tenure" the best word?

• changed to attendance.

• "Girls attending the school could study astronomy, chemistry, geography, and meteorology." Just checking: but not physics?

• Not physics, but natural philosophy.

• "Elisha was born in Lee, Massachusetts ..." Is it known when he was born?

• added his dates

• "demanded social and legal rights equal to men". Perhaps 'demanded social and legal rights equal to those of men'?

• done

• "than the others with exposure to sunlight". Optional: → 'than the others when exposed to sunlight'?

• done

• "For reasons that are unclear, Foote did not read her paper to those present[4][72] — women were in principle allowed to speak publicly at the conference —[6][7][Notes 5]". In one case the cites are before the dash, in the other after.

• Yes, I get that but the bit between the two dashes are explanatory and though they give important information are not digress from the subject of the sentence. I totally get that our MOS says citations after punctuation, but in this case, it would be silly, as none of the information between the two dashes is verified in 4 and 72. IMO, placing the citations after the first dash would indicate that it is part of the digression, which it is not, but I'm happy to follow your direction on it.

I would have expected both sets to be before the dash, in a similar way to cites and parentheses. But I wasn't so concerned as to which way you handled it as with the apparent inconsistency.

I still find it totally bizarre to cite a reference before the text in which it is verifying. I have moved the initial cites to follow the punctuation after unclear, as the citations after the dash verify that she didn't read her own paper. Does that work?

• "Foote began conducting experiments on static electricity". Is it known when this happened?

• No clue. She could have been studying it for years. But, since she published it in 1857, I changed it to read "By 1857, she was conducting..."

• "She was working from an assumption". A hypothesis?

• done

• "which were made as similarly as possible." "similarly" → 'similar'?

• I believe similarly is correct. It's the adverb which is modifying the verb made, not an adjective modifying a noun. My test is always to write it as a comparison, i.e. Similar vessels were similarly made.

• "Her experimental design repeated pairing". Is there a typo or missing word here?

• no she used a pair of vessels and then repeated testing them in paired situations sunlight/shadow, etc. I added "for each vessel" to the end. Better?

• "Rediscovery of Foote also sparked ..." Should this not start with a definite article?

• done

Bravo! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Gracias, mi amigo. I am very appreciative of your constant help and encouragement to improve articles. SusunW (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

De nada. Well done on another excellent and much needed article. Just the dash and cite issue left, but no reason for that to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional thought

• "Only thirteen texts prior to 1960 dealt with women's history". In the whole world? In all languages? And maybe 'Prior to 1960 only thirteen texts dealt with women's history'? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. Good observation. She doesn't say in the US, but her analysis "colonial" and "the South" make it obvious that is what she meant. I've changed per your suggestion, but tweaked it a bit with "published in the United States".

Comments from Vanamonde

Lovely to see this at FAC, I've been looking forward to reviewing this. I'll make some copy-edits as I go, please feel free to revert/discuss any of my changes. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

So happy to work with you again. Happy to discuss anything that will improve the article and happy to have you make edits directly. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• "In 1856 and 1857, she published the only two scientific papers in the field of physics to be written by an American woman prior to 1889. [...] Her 1857 paper was also notable in that it was the first time an American woman's work had been published in the Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the first known publication in physics by a woman in a scientific journal." There's some redundancy here, and I'm not sure every piece of this is lead material...It's also somewhat confusing; if the 1857 paper was the first known physics paper by a woman, then what was her 1856 paper? Let's look for some way to simplify.

• Good catch. I've tweaked it. Better?

• Inconsistency resolved, but it still feels like a tad too much detail for me in the lead. There's three different, rather complex "firsts" there. To me, "It was the first known publication in physics by a woman in a scientific journal" is far and away the most important of those claims. I would drop the sentence about publication in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science from the lead. I'd also suggest some reordering, which I did and then self-reverted to show you what I mean; I think that flows more easily. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Fine with me. I've accepted your version.

• "died when she was two years old" the "she" is ambiguous, Eunice or the sister?

• sister. Changed wording to "died at two years old".

• "Girls attending the seminary received credit for following a regimen, or demerits for infractions" like at most schools, surely?

• Perhaps it is a common boarding/private school experience? Certainly not part of my schooling experience. If you broke the rules in my day, your parents were called to take you home. Morality was taught at home and no student would ever have been allowed to challenge authority, much less their grades. But I've struck the information.

I am sorry to see it go. I think that it would be interesting scene-setting information for many, possibly most, readers. Please consider reinstating it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I keep coming back to this. If we think of it in terms of women's history, not general history that omitted women, do we really think that since this was one of the handful of institutions that allowed women to even attend, that allowing women/girls to challenge their marks (or anything else) was common? I am leaning to putting it back, but will await Vanamonde's reply. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw these replies yesterday, but wanted to think on it for a bit...so forgive the lengthy response. There's things about the circumstances Foote grew up in that likely had an impact on her adult life. Some of those things are likely typical for someone in her position; others, less so. Looking at the stuff that was cut, I can see an argument to restore some of it, but I'm reluctant to suggest restoring it all. The sentence about students being able to challenge their marks is actually quite unusual. But students receiving merits and demerits is what I would have expected of any school modelled even remotely on a British public school, and if it must be in there, I suggest placing it in a footnote. Similarly: I think "modeled the school's curricula on his methodology and wrote textbooks encouraging students to study nature" is worth reinstating, but I'm not sure about the list of subjects taught at the school, unless there's information about which ones Foote herself studied, or the suggestion in any of the sources that the opportunity to study any of the unusual ones influenced her in any way. Hope that makes sense, happy to discuss further. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Forgive my harping on women's history, but without putting her life in a woman's sphere, one misses how remarkable it was. The point of context is not general education or general history, it's women's education and history, as historically women's experiences were far different and certainly not documented or studied. As for the subjects taught, if girls were permitted to go to school at all they got a finishing school education. Standard curricula was etiquette, French, poetry, music, needlework, and painting. The fact that real educational courses were even offered to women at Troy is astounding. Okay, I found a source and will modify the text for context.[2] (As for what she actually studied, no clue, but having educational choices in and of itself would have been influential to my mind. I wrote to numerous libraries as well as Perlin trying to find out more specific information about her schooling and life. No one provided any information, but as far as I can tell my research uncovered all the points except how Eunice and Elisha met, that he covered in the recent BBC podcast.)

Perhaps then the issue isn't the detail, but that its significance isn't quite communicated. As someone who doesn't really know the history of women's education, it wasn't obvious at all that this was pathbreaking. Unusual, sure, but I didn't consider it may be unusual even for well-to-do progressive women. It still also begs the question if the material isn't better covered at the article about the seminary...I'll look in once you've revised. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, globally, educational curricula fail to give context and general knowledge about women's experiences. It is both frustrating and exhilarating to write about them because context is often missing and must be unburied. It is hard to identify what information I know from years of study, but others do not know for unintentional gaps in their own education. Obviously, it is why collaboration is beneficial.

This looks good to me now. If you wanted to reinstate the sentence about Phelps modelling teaching methods after Eaton's, that would be fine with me also. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• A separate point, since it's somewhat unrelated; why "Willard's pupils"? If the school was run by Phelps, shouldn't it be Phelps' students, or the Seminary's students?

• It's gone with the modification.

• Similarly, it strikes me that there's a lot of material in that section about the schools, that aren't directly tied to Newton herself. Some of it is likely worth keeping as illuminating context, but you could afford to trim, I think.

• I've taken a stab at it. If you want to make other changes please feel free, or explain to me in more detail.

• See comment above.

• "father of Elizabeth Cady Stanton" that's a pretty distant connection to mention, it's the daughter of the teacher of the husband of the article subject...suggest stopping at the judge, and putting the connection to Stanton in a footnote when the latter is mentioned in her own right.

• Hmmm. From a US women's history standpoint, Stanton is a major figure. While her father may be notable in his own right, he is primarily known now for being Stanton's father. Omitting their relationship to explain who he was makes him just a judge, who happened to train Elisha. I'm happy to discuss, but removing it to me alters critical context for the article.

• So, I think I agree with you on the principle. Which is why, to me, it sounds odd the way she's introduced; as if someone were name-dropping. Stanton is important; but as far as I can see, the connection to Elisha is incidental. Which is why I'd suggested leaving her out of the introduction to Elisha...but I see it doesn't work with the information about Stanton house. I've adjusted to fix the run-on sentence, take a look. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect Eunice and Elizabeth met during schooling, whether as actual classmates or because Eunice attended with Elizabeth's siblings. Had any definitive information linked the two during schooling, and I would introduced Elizabeth earlier. But, lacking documentation of an earlier relationship, I opted to put that information in a note. I can think of no easy way to introduce the relationship. The entwining of these families is pretty clear from the records, but not specifically stated anywhere, so we are limited in what we can and cannot say. Your version is fine.

• Similarly; paragraph about Elisha is on the longer side for a person with a standalone article. His land purchases could be trimmed, I think.

• Similarly, the Stanton House, is part of the Women's Rights National Historical Park, thus his involvement in its acquisition is significant, but it seems abrupt to just say he bought it without context that he was speculating in land. IMO, removing the discussion about the property removes an important part of women's history and its context. See below.

• I think what you have in this version is fine, and adding that Foote was a speculator is okay; it was the detail about when he was a speculator, and also the multiple purchases and sales, that were bothering me.

• I wonder if the second paragraph of Marriage and family life would do better as the last?

• I tried this, but don't like the flow so I've reorganized the entire section. Better?

Much better, thank you!

• "Foote's paper, Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays" has not been previously mentioned. I'd suggest something like "Foote described her findings in a paper, Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays, that she submitted to..."

• done

• "published Foote's complete paper under her name" upon re-reading, I wonder if we're able to say what this name was? It seems obvious to you and me, I suppose, but I see later the reference to "Mrs. Elisa Foote", and I suppose at the time this would have been considered "her name" as well...

• I'm confused? The photograph of the publishing in the article shows her name Eunice Foote, but then again, perhaps not everyone can see the photo. (And you are correct, as a married woman, using her own given name would have been highly unusual.) I've modified it and linked given name.

• I missed the picture, but the modification is still worthwhile, IMO. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• "claimed that her findings had been "never heretofore proven"" perhaps it's just my inability to understand 19th century phraseology, but is this criticism (her findings are doubtful and unproven) or praise (her results prove something previously unknown)?

• Praise. Tweaked.

• "A skate that she invented" do we know if roller skates or ice skates?

• No idea. If, as seems likely, it was the one Elisha patented, it was an ice skate.

• "A skate that she invented, which did not have straps, was reported in The Emporia News in 1868.[93] Elisha filed a patent on a skate attached to the boot with screws in 1864.[94]" So, both of these are cited to primary sources. In and of itself, that's okay, but in combination they do imply Elisha filed a patent on a skate invented by Eunice, and I'm not sure the use of primary sources to do that is okay...I would suggest omitting the patent, and just leaving the sentence cited to Emporia. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm confused. I already explained that it was typical for him and other husbands to patent her/their wife's inventions, because legally she had no separate identity. If he did patent her invention, it would have been perfectly normal (and certainly not scandalous in any way), but I did not draw that conclusion (no OR), merely stated facts as given in the sources. (For the record, I did a thorough search of patent records and there is nothing that indicates any other patent for a skate filed by either of them.) How is the Emporia News written by a "Washington correspondent of the Missouri Democrat" primary? It isn't an interview and is independent of Foote.

• Perhaps I phrased it badly...The sentence cited to Emporia is fine. It's about Eunice, it's a secondary source, etc. The sentence cited to the patent is, in isolation, fine, and is supported by its source. But given the earlier context, its inclusion and placement does imply to the reader that the patent was for Eunice's invention. Which seems probable, but I don't think we can imply it. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree that I am implying anything. I am stating two facts without analyzing the statements in any way. It could be that they are the same skate, or it could be that they are not. IMO, you are drawing a conclusion based on those two facts. (Obviously I cannot document in independent sources that there is no other filing on a skate by either Foote, nor that I researched patents. There is no source analyzing the fact as they are known, so I don't think we can go beyond stating them, but it is a question that perhaps future researchers can unravel.) It can be moved to a note, if you think that is necessary.

• I don't think you intend to imply anything, but I think that's the effect...I would prefer it be moved, yes. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• moved to a note

• "Scientists and journalists generally concur that Foote fell into obscurity because..." but you haven't said that she did fall into obscurity. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• She was a woman, of course she fell into obscurity. But for a handful of women, they all did until women's studies programs emerged around 1970. But your point is taken. I'll revisit when I revisit the following bullet point.

• done

• This comment is going to make some work for you, apologies...In reading the last three section as presently written, I'm struck by the following: first, that "legacy" information, if you will, is spread over three sections; second, that the information in rediscovery is ordered chronologically rather than thematically; and third, there's considerable WP:PROSELINE. I would suggest combining sections, into something like "death, rediscovery, and legacy"; after mentioning her death, say she fell into obscurity, and include the reasons why; then cover the background to rediscovery; and only then any analysis of the science, ordered thematically. I'm seeing a few broad threads there that could be used for sub-sections or paragraphs. 1) Analysis/critique of her experiments. 2) Her role as a pioneering woman scientist. 3) Her role in discovering aspects of the greenhouse effect before anyone else. 4) debates over whether Tyndall knew of her work. Hope this makes sense. I would offer to dig in myself were it not that I'd need to consult the sources, and I don't have the time or capacity for that at the moment. Happy to discuss anything though. I'll return to comb the prose after we've dealt with this. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I need to give this some thought.

• I've given it a go. Better?

• Structurally far better, IMO. You could merge death as a subsection into Marriage and Family Life, to avoid a single-sentence section: or alternatively title the next one "death and rediscovery", and place the death and first paragraph about obscurity at the top...but those are just stylistic preferences, and suggestions only. I've made and self-reverted some edits to show an example of how it could be done. The proseline and topical back-and-forth is fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't like moving her death before the discussion of her work and don't really like it in the recovery section either, so I've left it as it is, but made it 2 sentences.

• "Writer Ermina Leonard described Eunice..." If I understand the footnote correctly, Ermina Leonard is Eunice's sister. Not exactly an independent source...it's okay for the painting anecdote, I think, but the relationship needs mentioning.

• Leonard is not Eunice's sister (see below). Eunice's sibling were Amanda, Cynthia, Morris, Seymour, Amanda II, Althea, Darius, Silas, Mary, Adeline, (Eunice), and John.

• See next response.

• I find footnote 5 dreadfully confusing. "In 1846, Elisha acquired property in Seneca Falls from a woman with the same name as his mother-in-law, Thirza Newton.[4][35] Thirza Newton also sold land in Seneca Falls in 1843 to Charles D. Williams.[44] According to Ermina Leonard, Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea had married a doctor Williams in Seneca Falls." Ermina is the daughter of a different Thirza, no? Who is Charles D. Williams, and why do we care about land transactions between him and someone who shares Foote's mother's name? Who's Althea? Are we implying she married Charles D. Williams, and if so should we do so based on primary sources? I wonder if the entire thing ought to be avoided...

• I'm not sure how you are making this connection between Ermina Leonard and Eunice Newton. They were extremely distant cousins and it seems highly doubtful that they would have ever even met, since Leonard says she knows nothing of that line of the family beyond what she found doing research on Eunice's grandfather, Isaac Newton Sr.(p 717) Leonard was born in 1846 and grew up in Wisconsin. (p 381) She was possibly a 4th cousin of Eunice?, which to my mind isn't primary. Thirza is a pretty obscure name and the fact that there are records listing a Thirza, much less a Thirza Newton in Seneca Falls seems significant to me. I've tweaked the note and will remove it if you think I must.

• It was the commas in the footnote..."According to Leonard, Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea..." even in the new version, it's possible to read that as Leonard being Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister. So that's no longer an issue. As to the rest of it, though, I really think it's tangential. It's interesting, but Eunice is playing no part it in. Perhaps move it to Elisha's article? It concerns his land speculation, it's fair game there. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've tweaked it to read "Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea, married a doctor Williams and they lived in Seneca Falls, according to Leonard." Better? (As for leaving it in, writing about women is not straight forward. One cannot as a general rule search for her and find much information. How one uncovers her history is to back in by researching her husband, her children, her siblings and the various associations with which she might have been involved. Thus, to my eye and experience, knowing that her family was likely also in Seneca Falls opens avenues of discovery. If it is my preference, I'd leave it in, in hopes that it is helpful to someone in recovering more of her life story.)

• That's a lot clearer, thanks. I'm still inclined to believe it's unnecessary, but in a footnote, not the biggest deal. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Looking through the sources, the familysearch sources appear to only be used for details of land transactions, so I wonder if they're needed? Omitting some dates or names there isn't a big deal, IMO.

• No, they appear also for census records to confirm where they lived, death records to confirm where she died, and for the passport, which gives the only physical description we have for her. I also don't know how we can omit the sources to show he was speculating in land, without losing context for the purchase/sale of Stanton's house. But, regardless, they all meet our guidelines for limited use of primary for simple facts (not notability) and as I pointed out, they are not likely to be unreliable.

• Well, let's see what the source review has to say. I suspect it's likely to be the only sticking point, but I don't want you to have to remove information you believe is crucial. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• See comment above on women's research. The land records don't just identify that Elisha sold property. The jointly are mentioned in some deeds, which in context show that that whole "one flesh" idea was changing.

• I don't think you're in any danger of archival, but given the length of my review I'm going to note that I've read through and fully expect to support eventually. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for that comment, it's a wee light at the end of a tunnel. Article review isn't always a pretty process, but in the end, I think the results are usually improvement. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not so wee as all that, I don't think you're far off...Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Women scholars began recovering Foote's role as a nineteenth-century scientist." the "began" is odd without a timeframe, which is supplied in the previous sub-section. I'd suggest appending "in the 1970s" or equivalent.

• done

• "in other words visible and invisible radiation." Minor quibble; the sun also emits infrared (and UV, and a lot of other invisible radiation). I think this is trying to say that the sun's radiation and the earth's radiation have differing compositions, important for climate change, but that Foote's apparatus couldn't distinguish them; but the addendum is confusing me, at least. I think you could omit it, and simply stop at "effects of energy emitted from the sun and infrared energy radiated by the Earth".

• done.

That's it from me. There's two minor prose issues in the restructured section for you to look at, and a suggestion about the restructuring, but this are almost trivial. This is incredible work on a topic that can't have been easy to research. Support. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review and help in improving the article. I cannot even begin to say how hard working on it was. I am still frustrated that we have no sense of who she actually was, but perhaps some day one of the people who claim to be "writing a book about her" will publish and we can learn about her and not just her scientific work. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

Planning to review the rest of the article soon. Just found one thing that doesn't seem quite right: the Jahresbericht (1856) links to the German Mathematical Society which was founded in 1890, and so did not publish a journal in 1856. Could this be a different Jahresbericht (annual report)? (Happy to help hunting for German sources or even the original if you can give me a little further context). —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Kusma, I will admit I do not have any idea and to be honest, those links were there when I began working on the article and I apparently missed that. Jackson says, "the summaries on heat were made by either Friedrich Zamminer or Hermann Kopp" and the footnote (27) says the full title was "Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der reinen, pharmaceutischen und technischen Chemie, Physik, Mineralogie und Geologie" (pp 112-113) No en.wp article on de:Friedrich Zamminer, a physicist, and our piece on Hermann Franz Moritz Kopp, a chemist, merely says he edited Jahresbericht. I've removed the link and added the longer title. SusunW (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

All of that is correct and now the original text is reasonably easy to find thanks to the full title. Here it is on p. 63 of this 1856 Jahresbericht (edited by Justus von Liebig and Hermann Kopp). This page verifies that the chapter in question was written by Zamminer and Kopp. Don't worry about not noticing this wrong link -- it was just easy for me to see because I both read German and am a member of the German Mathematical Society :) I will try to read more of this interesting article later and comment on what I find. —Kusma (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your correction. As I said above, the science is the hard part for me, so I will appreciate any guidance and/or corrections. Women's history I know, physics, not so much, so I relied heavily on those who have a better grasp on it than I do. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A few more comments. Nothing major, on the whole this is an excellent article.

• Lead: "marrying a patent attorney in 1841": in the body, it seems he only became a patent attorney later. Is the omission of Elisha's name deliberate?

• Changed it to attorney. Yes, I always leave out names of other notables from the lede unless absolutely necessary (you'll note only Tyndall is mentioned here and only because of the controversy). It is deliberate omission to avoid inherited notability and reinforce that she is notable in her own right. It can be added if you think it necessary.

• No, that's fine. He doesn't seem particularly relevant to her notability other than perhaps as funder for her experiments.

• (wink) He may have controlled the money legally, but she earned it. It was her invention of that stove and it's patent infringement lawsuit that earned them "a small fortune" according to Hecht, just saying.

• I misread the timeline... for some reason I thought the inventions came after the science, possibly because they are ordered that way in the article. In any case, all we need to know is probably that he contributed to her being in a rather privileged position.

• "her contributions were lost": weren't they forgotten more than lost?

• "Forgotten", to me, implies that it was somewhat unintentional, i.e. something slipped from memory because the people who knew about it died. With regard to women's history their lives were more truly deliberately omitted, ignored, not studied,[3],[4],[5], etc. primarily because they were not seen as public figures. Pick a field, any at all and sources will exist to show that erasure, but they will also show that social norms, not evil intent drove that situation. Thus, the most neutral word, IMO would be lost. Happy to discuss.

• I'm not fully convinced that her work was specifically targeted by erasure (none of your examples seems related to her) and more lost/forgotten than that of male American amateur scientists would have been, but we can't test this experimentally. "Lost" would imply to me that the work became mostly inaccessible, but that doesn't seem to be the case as it was published/mentioned in several high quality journals that were present in any good scientific library.

• I didn't cite sources specifically related to her because they are cited in the article. The sources above were used to illustrate how widespread the problem for women was in every field. Brockell says specifically in her article on Foote, "… the scientific community also has a long history of not crediting the work of women". Brazil says "Eunice Foote, who seems to have suffered the fate of being ignored by her contemporaries". Darby says, "Katharine Hayhoe found Foote's contribution after a colleague asked why there were no women in the history of the discipline". Garrett says "Foote's work clearly preceded Tyndall's, but her contribution to climate science is buried in obscurity"…and illustrative of "…barriers experienced by women at the top of scientific and medical achievement". McNeill "Eunice Foote's career highlights the subtle forms of discrimination that have kept women on the sidelines of science". Plenty more, but thread is obvious. I'm happy to use obscured, to avoid the point you make on "lost", (and have changed the text to that) but the sources clearly indicate lack of knowledge about her/her work had to do with her gender and the way society viewed contributions of women.

• Fine.

• Marriage and family life: "just under five feet two inches tall" can you translate that also to metric?

• I've given a template a go, admittedly I am terrible with them. Is it right or should I take out the words and just leave the numbers?

• Probably best to go all words or all numbers + abbreviations in both systems instead of the duplication you have right now.

• Okay, just used the template.

• Scientific career: say that the Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte... is German, and use {{lang|de|Jahresberichte...}} so screenreaders know what language they need to speak.

• Again, I am not very technical, so I have tried to do this, but if I didn't do it correctly, please feel free to change it.

• I think it is ok, although to clarify what the "two European" journals are a few sentences later, you could mention that this one was one of the European ones. For example, you could turn the 1856 into "Giessen, 1856". (Although more precisely it is the annual report for the year 1856, published in 1857, as the title page states).

• Okay, I think I have fixed it. Included 1856 in the title and the (Giessen, 1857)

• Good.

• Inventions: link Papermaking machine and consider using {{inflation}} to explain what the $157 mean in today's money

• Gog the Mild will be shocked, but I think I managed to input this correctly. I routinely have trouble with this specific template, but think I did it this time.

• Didn't check the wikitext, but looks fine.

• Rediscovery/Background: was Foote forgotten more than the other early feminists? Is her being a scientist a reason to overlook her as a feminist? Or am I misunderstanding this section?

• Background: The point is virtually none of the early feminists or any other pioneering women in any field were remembered or studied until women's studies programs were founded. Many liberationists papers that I have read said they were convinced that they were the first women to protest their lack of rights, as they knew nothing about the prior feminist movement. They might have vaguely known of Susan B. Anthony or Emmaline Pankhurst, but not that there was an international movement of women pressing for rights. In the 1970s, activist scholars began recovering historic women, not just in their own limited historical spheres, but within the shared history of society. They started with visible women, i.e. those depicted in museum paintings and manuscripts, and activists involved in the suffrage movement, before moving on to study women more generally.[6]
• Specifically regarding Foote, information on her is extremely hard to come by. No photos, very few personal records, particularly digitized ones. It probably would take someone on the ground in the places she lived, to actually uncover her story, if the records exist. Newspapers, feminist journals, school records, etc. are the likely places to find out about her life, and those who have written about her thus far have not been able to uncover those. (Anecdotally my answer to the first part is yes. I was a women's studies major, and never heard of her, probably because no one was able to find details of her life, until Women in Red chose climate for an year-long initiative.) As for your second question, she obviously rejected the notion that she was confined to a private role in the home and was subsumed into the identity of her husband. In other words, had she not been a feminist, she would likely not have been a scientist. Is there a way I could make this clearer?

• I think what gives me pause is that you're starting with the 1902 Suzan B. Anthony speech that specifically mentions Foote among others, and immediately after, you single out Foote as falling into obscurity, which seems to imply that the other feminists did not fall into obscurity. You then explain why her scientific contributions were overlooked for a long time. My (perhaps incorrect) impression is that Anthony was interested in Foote as an advocate for women's rights, not as a scientist, so that aspect of her life was already obscure even in 1902. Modern interest in her seems to be very much focused on her discovery of the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide, and this rightly takes up the majority of the article. (Her non-climate related research and inventions seem to be of very little interest also today. For instance, she isn't mentioned in any of the paper-making books I can access).

• Okay, my bad. I assumed that the plight of women's obscurity was "general knowledge", but clearly from this FA review, that isn't as well known as I had thought. Vanamonde said that I had omitted saying she fell into obscurity before addressing the why, so I added "but Foote fell into obscurity", which is now causing concern. I've moved the first sentence in "Background" to the next paragraph, added a summary of the above cites on Foote/women scientists and added a source which confirms neglect of scholars for women's history and lack of publishing about the first feminists until the mid-1970s. Is that better/clearer?

• Much better.

• Generally, I would actually say we seem to know a reasonable amount about her life; as a 19th century upper class woman she appears to be fairly well documented (I've written about an 18th century inventor and I don't even know when he lived...)

• Methinks Irving's issue probably has more to do with the fact that his name is fairly common and easily misspelled than a reflection of gender or scientific bias. (Having written about tons of activists, I can only say that what we know about her is appallingly little. I get that scientists are interested in her scientific contributions, but I am far more interested in her social works, and there is surprisingly little known about that considering where she lived. Had she lived in a rural area, on the frontier, or been a woman of color, the lack of info would not be surprising, but for her class, education, and connections, it is very, very sparse.)

• I see.

• Legacy and recognition: isn't half of the preceding section about her recognition as well? But, I think that's all I have. —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but I think it is better placed in recovery, because it was a process. Modern scientists had to verify that she did indeed draw the conclusion about climate before it became her actual legacy for which she could be recognized. I am happy to consider reconfiguring it if you have a suggestion.

• Don't have a smart suggestion, sorry. So it can probably stay as is.

Thank you so much for reviewing the article. As I said above, to Vanamonde, it is hard for me to know what is general knowledge about women's history and what I know because I have studied it for many decades. Sorry for the lengthy answers. SusunW (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries about long replies, I'm guilty of the same :) Just a few more tiny things to do, and perhaps to fully convince me that you don't need to do anything in some other places. Thanks again for the article, which serves as a reminder that we still need to do quite some work on our coverage of women scientists. Maybe I'll get to work on Anna Blackburne some day. —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blackburn looks interesting, although I admit I have trouble finding UK sources from Mexico, because websites routinely block IP access from here. I think I've addressed your concerns now, but if not, just advise. SusunW (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• You have, and I am happy to support promotion of this excellent article. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from PresN

• 'Notes 1' - "Amanda, remained at the farm until 1882." - comma unneeded

• fixed

• 'Notes 2' starts out by talking about "Elizabeth Cady", but Elizabeth Cady Stanton isn't mentioned in-text until 2 paragraphs after that note is referenced, meaning there's no context for the name by that point in the article

• To be honest, I am not sure where exactly to introduce Stanton, but it seems likely they encountered each other at the school. I've reworded the first sentence to reflect ties to the school. Is that better?

• "and wrote text books for the students" - was "textbooks" how it was written at the time? I've never seen it as two words before, and you leave it as textbooks much later in the article.

• Nope, just a typo. Thanks for catching that

• "Newton married Elisha Foote Jr., (1809–1883) a lawyer." - I feel like that comma should be after the parenthetical, not before

• done

• In Notes 5, you take pains to state that the seller "had the same name" as Elisha's mother-in-law, presumably because you can't prove that it was Newton's mother and you're/the sources are just going off of names and who married who? Except that two sentences later in the note you say that Thirza was the mother of Newton's sister- but I guess you mean the Thirza who was Eunice's mother, not necessarily (though probably) the Thirza who sold the houses, but that's not made clear. I feel like you should be more explicit that the names line up but that it's not proven that there's just the one Thirza, instead of just lining up the statements next to each other- it took me a few times reading the note to get what you were implying even though I knew the relative lack of sourcing you're dealing with here, and having it like "In 1846, Elisha acquired property in Seneca Falls from a Thirza Newton. While it is not certain that this Thirza Newton was the woman of the same name who was Eunice's mother, the seller also sold land in Seneca Falls in 1843 to Charles D. Williams, and Eunice's sister Althea married a doctor Williams and they lived in Seneca Falls, according to Leonard." Or something like that.

• Good points and yes, that's the issue. I've tweaked it. Is it better?

• "The couple remained in the county until 1856, when they sold land to Daniel Cady and Henry Stanton." - are you saying that they sold the land the lived on and left in 1856, or are you saying that they still lived the county as least as long as 1856, when they "sold land", and left sometime between 1856 and 1860?

• The latter. I cannot find any record of them anywhere between 1856 and 1860. I've tweaked it. Better?

• "On his birthday in 1865" - given that his birthday wasn't mentioned earlier, this seems trivial to specify

• removed

• Minor formatting note- in the text, you italicize the "Circumstances" paper and the "Electrical Excitation" paper, though you quote it in the image caption. It seems like it should be quoted throughout? You do quote Elisha's paper instead of italicizing, and the same for other papers, so it's inconsistent.

• I find the MOS instructions on titles of works very confusing. Obviously these were her major works, but as papers are listed in the guideline as minor works I guess the should be in quotation marks. I've made all of them quotes, or at least I think I did.

• "But neither of them had recognized" - fragment; "However, neither of them had recognized"

• fixed

• "Her failure to name the specific works of the scientists that had influenced her, marked Foote" - comma unneeded

• deleted

• "Their printed findings in 2022, contain a description" - comma unneeded

• deleted

• "But Jackson also notes"- fragment; "However, Jackson also notes"

• fixed

• Overall, a very solid work; only relatively minor comments from me at this point. --PresN 03:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

PresN Thank you very much for your review. You have noted some of the things that are definitely difficult to address and I have tried to make it clearer. If I have failed to do so, please advise and I will revisit. SusunW (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to Support. --PresN 20:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• What steps were taken to try to obtain an image of the individual?

• Hey Nikkimaria, nice to see you here. I checked newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, Old Fulton, New York State Historic Newspapers, archive.org, and Hathitrust but found nothing in the usual places I look. There was a photograph in the lede when I started working on it, but I proved that was not her, rather her daughter. Sources, such as Brazil say no definitive photograph or drawing of her has been found. Jacobs says there is no known photograph, as does Schwartz who reports that relatives were contacted in an attempt to find one. I also found a web page posted when the 2018 symposium was held asking for people to try to find one. I also looked for, the original of the Declaration of Sentiments but it is also lost.

• File:Eunice_Foote's_signature.png: what is the copyright status of the original work? The current tagging is CC, but the work predates the existence of these licenses. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought I checked all of these when I added alt text, but I missed that signature. It was published on a patent application in 1860, so have updated the license to show {{PD-1923}}. It's a wee bit confusing to me because it is a federal document, but as it was an application I assume she filled it out and signed it and they merely published it, so I didn't tag it as created by government employee. I hope I did that correctly. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

• Lead

• "rising CO2 levels [first para] … carbon dioxide (CO2) [second para]" – better to have the fuller form at first mention, I think.

• Good catch. Thanks and fixed.

• Childhood and education

• "amassing wealth and losing money through speculation" – slightly odd phrasing. It's wealth when you amass it but money when you lose it?

• changed to Amassing wealth and losing it.

• "the vice principal of the Seminary" – I don't know about AmE, but to an English eye "vice-principal" needs a hyphen, unless it's the principal in charge of vice. And "the Seminary" surely doesn't want capitalising here?

• I have never seen the term with a hyphen. Googling it, the references turn up with a hyphen in BE. Searching for a grammatical reference, I find none on vice principal, but grammarist.com says "Outside the U.S., vice-president is usually hyphenated in all its uses. In U.S. publications, it usually lacks the hyphen." But, to avoid confusion, I've changed to assistant principal.

• Scientific career

• "Foote did not read her paper to those present — women were in principle allowed to speak" – careful with your dashes. The Manual of Style requires either unspaced en-dashes – like this, or unspaced em-dashes—like this.

• Went with spaced en-dashes, which is what I think you meant.

• Quite so: sorry about that. Tim riley talk 19:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Inventions

• "vulcanised rubber" – wouldn't "vulcanized" be the usual AmE form?

• Good catch. Missed that.

• Recovery

• "John Perlin, author of two definitive histories on solar energy" – definitive? Who says so?
• Added Nick Welsh

• Evaluating Foote's experiments

• Careful with your inverted commas: "Sun’s rays?; and Can the effect of different gases on the warming response of the Sun’s rays be ranked?" – the MoS requires straight, not curly, inverted commas.
• Fixed. (Did you know that you can search curly commas or quote marks and the search doesn't differentiate between straight and curly. I did try to do all of these, but it's a manual process and I appreciate your extra eyes finding this.)

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 17:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Your comments were spot on and very useful. I appreciate your help in improving the article Tim riley. SusunW (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick! I was surprised, informed, and delighted by this article, and I take my hat off to Foote (and to SusunW). Very happy to support FA status: in my view it meets all the criteria. Tim riley talk 19:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• Stanton (1898) is too early for an ISBN. I assume you used a reprint/facsimile edition? Suggest using the modern date plus the orig-date parameter.
  • Actually, I am positive that I did not put an ISBN number in. I manually format refs and always run ISBNs through a converter so that they are segmented properly. I used the original 1898 version, which has no such number. I've removed the ISBN, but that is not to say that some bot/person won't reinsert it.

    It happens. Just undo the edit. If you see a bot do it, that's an issue; bots ought not to be making edits like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• You give the publisher for Mitchell (2018), but not for any other uses of "cite news"; suggest removing this for consistency.
  • done
• In FN 27, 107 and 145 you give the domain name instead of the work or publisher. Also "Biographical Sketches of the Commissioners of Patents: Elisha Foote (1868–1869)" has uspto.gov instead of "United States Patent and Trademark Office".
  • I am not sure that I understand the difference between a domain name and a website. Our MOS says "title or domain name of the website" should be given. It seems to me as if you are saying I should not use the domain, but rather the "page name", so I have done that. If that is incorrect, please advise.

    The domain name is whatever you see in the URL -- it usually has a .com, .edu, .org, .gov or something similar at the end. The website is the name of the website -- it's often the same as the publisher, but not always. For example, for the OED, oed.com is the domain name; "Oxford English Dictionary" is the website name, and "Oxford University Press" is the publisher. When people say page name they usually mean the title of a specific page, so for the OED's How to use the OED page, the title or page name is "How to use the OED", but the website is still "Oxford English Dictionary". Does that clarify it? Your changes to 27 and 107 and to the USPTO.gov sources look good. For 145 you've put "Eunice Newton Foote Medal for Earth-Life Science", but since it's all part of the AGU website I would say this should be "American Geophysical Union". This duplicates the publisher, and it's also OK to have a rule that publishers on websites are omitted from the citation if they duplicate or are obvious from the website name (the New York Times is another example). So you could also choose to go through your web citations and remove publishers that are obvious from the website. Either way is fine; in fact any logical rule for how you format them is fine, so long as you're consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

    Okay, I've changed the website in the last one to the AGU.

• In FN 105, why is EnergieWinde in lower case?
  • The truthful answer is that is how it copy/pastes. Fixed.
• You have " New York, New york" for the "Electrical Excitation" source.
  • Fixed

That's it for formatting. Will take a look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability:

• I was initially alarmed to read this in the introduction to Leonard (1915): "Following the example of many town historians, I have used my imagination to "suppose" and "perhaps," in several cases", but fortunately she followed this up by making it clear that these suppositions are always presented in brackets to distinguish them from the results of research. Noting it here in case a question comes up about the use of the source.
  • Yes, I noted the same and did a "spot check" of her material on the Newtons/Footes, for example Leonard says "At an early period of his married life Mr. Newton removed from Goshen to East Bloomfield, N.Y." Checking the census records, there is only one Isaac Newton in East Bloomfield, and he first appears in 1820 with 14 family members. She states that Amanda was born in 1800 and died in 1882 and that Eunice died in Lenox, Massachusetts in 1890. Amanda's obituary in the local Ontario Repository and Messenger confirms that she died "Nov. 20th, 1882, aged 82 years, 4 months, 16 days". The obituary from the New York Tribune and death certificate for Eunice confirm she died on September 30, 1888 at Lenox, Massachusetts.
• I see no issues with the secondary sources. For the primary sources, since I can't see the sources themselves as they're paywalled, can you comment on the following?
  • The 1804-1857 Grantee and Grantor indices are the only sources cited for "Elisha began buying property in Seneca County, New York, in 1836 and was active in selling it from 1840". How were you able to confirm that the references to this Elisha are to Eunice's husband?

    This is a long answer, but it's how I do due diligence on any source. The source is a list of grantors/grantees for property and contains names and land identifiers. No data to identify who the names are. We know our Elisha was in western New York by this time and "moonlighting" as a real estate attorney because at minute 11.00 of the BBC podcast (external links in the article), Perlin says he met Eunice when representing her family in a land dispute case. We have lots of records linking Elisha to Seneca Falls from 1841, and land speculation would not be unusual for someone engaged in real estate law, so the question becomes could it be someone else? Reviewing the entirety of the New York census collections for Elisha/Elijah/Elisah Foote/Foot I found an Elisha in Albany in 1820 and 1830, an Elisha A. and Elisha Jr. in Northampton, Montgomery County in 1820, 1830, 1840, and 1850, an Elisha in Otsego in 1820 and 1830, and an Elisha on the 1840 census in NY City.

    Elisha A. in Northampton had 8 family members in 1820 as did Elisha Jr. and in 1830 father had 5 and Jr. had 9. (They are still in Northampton in 1840 and 1850, when our guy is definitively in Seneca Falls and one of them died there in 1855.) Elisha in Otego had 5 family members in 1820 and 7 in 1830 and died in 1842. The Elisha in NYC in 1840 is confusing, and maybe runs a boarding house or school?, as he reported 50 whites and 12 free blacks in his household! None of them match the configurations for our Elisha's family. Elisha's father, also Elisha, lived in Ward 1 of Albany and had 13 children.Goodwin, 158-159 There are 15 persons living in the household of the Albany Elisha in 1830 (after his youngest child was born in 1826). There are 9 persons reported in 1820, leaving open the possibility that Julia Jerusha listed by Goodwin as born on 12 August 1819, was actually born in 1820, since the census was taken on 7 August.

    Since there was no report of an Elisha in Albany in 1840, to confirm that an indexer did not miss an entry, I read all of Ward 1 in the 1840 census and found no Elisha or any Foote.[7] I also checked Seneca County. There is one person named Elijah Fowte living in Seneca Falls on the 1840 census and no other people surnamed Foote/Foot in the county that I could find. He is 30-40 years old, living with 1 male 15-20, 1 female 5-10, 1 female 10-15, and 1 female 30-40.[8] Looks like a husband, wife and children, which we know matches neither our Elisha who wasn't yet married, or his father, who was much older than 40. The 1850 census shows only 1 Elisha Foote in Seneca Falls. We know per Goodwin that Sr. died in 1846 in NYC, so he was alive when many of these transactions were happening. The transactions up to 1846 list Elisha Foot(e) Jr. and from 1851 the name is given simply as Elisha Foote. The only other Jr. that I could identify in New York remained in Northampton. The indices also show transactions with Cady in 1841 and 1856 (though none in 1845?) and with Henry Stanton in 1856. Evaluating the records we have, it seems unlikely to me that the grantor/grantee list could refer to anyone else.

  • How were you able to tell that the Thirza Newton who sold land to Elisha in 1846 was the same Thirza Newton who sold land in 1843? And why is the sale to Charles D. Williams mentioned in the note?

    The difference to me in this case and the case of Elisha above is that the two transactions with Thirza Newton are the only sources linking her to Seneca Falls. While it may be that these were her sons-in-law I want stronger evidence, like maybe being able to review the actual deeds, which typically say this person of this place sells to that person of that place. That said, Thirza is a really uncommon name, even historically.[9][10] If there were only 386 people born between 1880 and 2019 worldwide that had that name (only 47 in the US), it would be crazy odds that there were 3 different Thirza's also with the surname Newton, who were transacting business over time in the same places Elisha was. (I also noted that none of her daughters were named Thirza.) That said, I have no idea how reliable those stats are or what they were based on (i.e. birth registrations? census records?) I also cannot prove she is Elisha's mother-in-law nor that she is Charles Williams' mother-in-law, or that the Thirza in both transactions was the same, which is why there is a disclaimer. Maybe I need to reword it for clarity, but I'm not sure how.

    For this and the previous issue, I think you're running afoul of WP:SYNTH. What you're doing is perfectly reasonable for someone trying to determine the truth of the matter, and I wouldn't be surprised to see your reasoning reproduced exactly in a secondary source that you could then cite, but for Wikipedia I think it goes beyond what we should be doing. I don't think the problem is because these are primary sources -- that is, WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and I think you're OK there -- the conclusions you're drawing are simple statements of fact, and you're using logic and common sense to make the deduction. However, WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. [...] If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." I think that's what you're doing here. It doesn't seem this material is critical to the article so I would suggest cutting it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

    Okay, done.

  • What data enabled you to connect the census records to the family?
    • See above for 1820. On 1850 family members listed are Elisha (41, Lawyer), Eunice (31), Mary (8), Amanda (6), and Bridget McDaniel (12).
  • Same question for the death registry, and how does that record support "After Elisha's death, Eunice lived partly in Brooklyn and partly in Lenox, Massachusetts"?
    • In the column residence and place of death it states "Lenox & Brooklyn, NY". Since the death was recorded in Lenox and we know from the obit in the New-York Tribune that she did not die in New York, it did not seem that it was listing residence first and place of death second, but rather that she had lived in both places.
  • Same question for the passport application.
  • Not sure I am clear on what "same question" means, but assuming you are asking how I know it is our Eunice? It states known information. It was a dual application, for Eunice and her daughter. Information contained shows "Eunice N. Foote, wife of Elisha Foote of Saratoga Springs"…"born in the town of Goshen in the State of Connecticut on or about the 17th day of July 1819"…"Mary N. Foote her daughter was born at Seneca Falls in the State of New York on the 21st day of July 1842".

    Yes, that's what I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That's it for the sources. I'll check links next, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Mike. It got crazy here. The construction workers next door pushed a 2nd story wall down and it fell on our house. o.0 No significant damage, no one was hurt, but lots of Spanish flying and we had to notify the landlady, etc. I'll get back as soon as I can. Sorry. SusunW (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad no one was hurt! No hurry; whenever you’re ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry again. It was pretty scary and crazy. Lots of officials here for most of the day, but it's sorted.

One link is broken: Wilson (1857). Everything else looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Added wayback link.

I think I have now answered everything, but if not, let me know. Happy to discuss anything, as obviously the goal is to improve the article to a high standard. SusunW (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience with me and your taking time to thoughtfully reply. I think I have cleared the last few items. SusunW (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all looks good. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.