Talk:Elizabeth Wagner Reed

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 09:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for picking her up BennyOnTheLoose. I look forward to working on her with you. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• I made some minor script-assisted amendments. Hopefully uncontroversial, but please review and we can discuss any as necessary.

Copyvio check

• I reviewed all matches over 3% identified using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns.

Images

• I'm not sure the Map of Luzon Island adds much value here, but no harm in retaining it. Looks like "Drosophila melanogaster" should be italicised. Optionally, the caption could be wikilinked to Drosophila melanogaster. No other issues with licencing, positioning, ALT text or captions.

• I like the map because many people are geographically challenged. Even those who might know where the Philippines are may have no clue where Baguio is. Fixed the italics. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• All seem suitable sources.
• Spot checks on the James, McNeill, Sorenson (2018), and Star Tribune (1976a and 1976b). No issues.

Early life and education

• "excelled in academics" would be an unusual formulation in British English, I think, but I'll assume it's fine in US English.

• Seems fine to me, but changed it to excelled in her studies.

• "earned master's degree" - add "a" or "her"

• done

• [5][3] - reorder references.

• done

• she did post-graduate studies in 1937 in plant research" - "post-doctoral" or "further post-graduate"? Masters and PhD are postgraduate. (Or they are in British English, anyway).

• I am not sure of what is the best term, so just went with further studies.

• Reed's thesis title should be in italics per MOS:ITALICTITLE.

• done

• Thank you so much for your improvements. I'll return to answers in a bit. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Career

• "The work also noted that marriage and children were the primary reason women abandoned scientific careers" - like any study, this one will have had limitations, so I think this statement should be slightly weaker - e.g. (but you can, I'm sure provide a better wording): "concluded that marriage" or "primary reason that the women surveyed in the study gave"

• done

• "Tina Gianquitto" - it would be helpful to introduce Gianquitto in the text (e.g. "author of X" or "history of science scholar")

• done

• "Reed to that point had been" - "to that point" seems redundant

• deleted

• About another subject with a chapter in the book Eunice Newton Foote, Reed wrote that Foote's" - maybe "something like "In a different chapter of the book, about Eunice Newton Foote, Reed wrote that Foote's"?

• done

• "six of which were created by Reed" - does the source say what these were? Might be intersting to mwntion one or two.

• It doesn't say, but I am sure I could research and include them. That said, it seemed as if the works section was getting long and so I didn't. My guess is that the ones published in the The Science Teacher are of this group and I gave an example of one in the works section. If you think that's sufficient then we're good. If not, I can see what I can find to clarify. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• "Eunice Foote" can be just "Foote"

• done

Selected publications/Notes

• Looks OK.

Infobox and lead

• "Years active 1932–1996" - is there anything in sources that shows she was active to 1996? (Whatever that means.) Last dated activity I could see was the 1992 publication.

• Changed to 1992

• Optionally: I wonder whether "she became his research partner" could be rephased to something like "they became research partners"?

done

Breadth and NPOV.

• Based on what I've seen in sources, the article seems to be suitably broad in coverage, and with no issues about focus or neutrality.

Excellent work, SusunW. As ever, feel free to challenge any of my minor comments above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose Thank you so much for collaborating on improving the article. I genuinely appreciate your help in making it better. I think I have addressed all the points, but let me know if there is anything further. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, SusunW - I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Great work! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 97198 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Eunice Newton Foote
• Elizabeth Wagner Reed

)

Wagner Reed, 1933

• ... that the lost contributions of Eunice Newton Foote, about climate change, were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed (pictured), whose contributions to genetics were also lost? Source: "Foote’s groundbreaking conclusions fell into obscurity","Tyndall’s work is widely accepted as the foundation of modern climate science, while Foote’s remains in obscurity." "But in a lost piece of scientific history recovered only in 2011, Foote scooped Tyndall by three years",[1] "Elizabeth Wagner Reed, a teacher and researcher has drawn particular attention to American antebellum women in science ... gathering a list of twenty two biographies of such women.” pp88-89 "[Foote] also found the result that the cylinder containing carbon dioxide became much warmer in sunlight than the one containing air, thereby demonstrating what we call the greenhouse effect.p 66 "Among the leading figures historians present as those who established the field [of population genetics], none were women... This picture, as we will see, is historically inaccurate. From the very early days of Drosophila population genetics, which included studies of speciation, women were present. Natasha Sivertzeva-Dobzhansky (1901–1969), and Elizabeth Wanger Reed (1912–1996) were pioneers".EBSCOhost 143003976
• ALT1: ... that sexism contributed to the works of both Eunice Newton Foote, on climate change, and the geneticist who recovered her legacy, Elizabeth Wagner Reed (pictured), falling into obscurity? Source: See above and re Foote: science was largely a male-dominated field, ignored a discovery claimed by a woman, re Reed: "because they were married to prominent men in the field, their contributions have remained invisible, masked by those of their husbands".EBSCOhost 143003976

Declaration of Sentiments with Foote's signature

• ALT2: ... that the scientists Eunice Newton Foote (signature pictured) and Elizabeth Wagner Reed, who recovered Foote's legacy, were both women's rights campaigners? Source: see above and re Foote: "Foote attended, and signed the convention’s “Declaration of Sentiments” that stated the societal changes necessary to fully include women. More than that, she helped prepare the conference proceedings".[2] re Reed: "she taught women about their rights, helped improve their self-esteem, and encouraged them to continue working as scientists".EBSCOhost 143003976 "She had a lifelong commitment to women’s rights, expressed through activism, teaching and research”.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Samuel Garretson and Template:Did you know nominations/Emma Hunter (telegrapher)
  • Comment: These are two important women scientists whose legacies were lost. Many sources give the recovery of Foote to Sorensen, but he did not first recover her. Reed's work was published in 1992 and noted her theory on warming gases affecting climate, predating Sorensen's discovery in 2011 that Foote's work was earlier than Tyndall's. I'd really, really like them to have the lead slot. There are no known photographs of Foote and though we contacted Reed's daughter, a better photo of her could not be obtained. If the 2nd alt is chosen, the File:Declaration sentiments foote lrg.jpg (Foote's signature on the Declaration of Sentiments) could be used, but I have no earthly idea how to add a 2nd image to this nomination.
    • Added image to nomination, though Foote's signature isn't very prominent. --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by SusunW (talk), Ipigott (talk), XOR'easter (talk), and GRuban (talk). Nominated by SusunW (talk) at 14:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC).

• No issues with either of the article's eligibility, referencing, neutrality, copyright status (all quotes, org names and false positives on Earwig) or the like, as expected from writers of this calibre. The relevant achievements of each woman are quite nuanced—it's not so simple to say that Foote "discovered climate change", for instance—but I believe the articles communicate this nuance appropriately.
  However, when it comes to the hook (ALT0), I'm not too sure on the description of either person's work as being "lost". Foote's work was published in scientific journals under her own name. And perhaps I'm misreading, but it looks like Reed's work was built upon, just with her contributions not always fully portrayed. Is some other wording possible—about how the works were initially "overlooked" or "obscured", or were later "brought to prominence" or "reappraised" or "recognised"? I would like to stick with some variant of ALT0, though, as interesting and eye-catching.
  While I am sympathetic to this hook being appropriate for the first slot due to importance, I don't believe the images presented or any others in either article are of appropriate quality for the image slot, especially given the imbalance with no image of Foote. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv, I'm okay with that, but had to take a shot. The lack of a photo for Foote is frustrating, but nothing can be done about it unless one surfaces. As for lost, they were well and truly buried, scientists denied/ignored/didn't know or acknowledge that they had written works in their fields. Even though there was a published record, lack of digitization and biases also played a part in later scientists not recognizing them. I don't really know the best word to describe that phenomena. Perhaps unacknowledged? I get 176 characters if we go with "that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote, about climate change, were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose contributions to genetics were also obscured?" Does that work? SusunW (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote, about climate change, were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose contributions to genetics were also obscured?

Yep, that works for me. For clarity, I've written it out as ALT3 and it's an ALT3 approved from me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)