Hi all,

I have a question about proper citation practice. Basically, I have the following scenario:

In one of my chapters, I have one paragraph that draws on and connects my work to the work of another historian. That historian's work is much broader than mine and quite different from what I do. Still, I think it is useful to me to show how my work connects to her's.

The paragraph is built as follows:

1. The first few sentences describe that scholar's work and are based 100% on that work.
2. Then I make the connection to my specific case. Here I still draw on her work but also bring in my own case. Thus, here we find a mix between her work and my interpretation.
3. The last sentence of the paragraph again is 100% based on her work.

So far I have only one footnote in this paragraph right at the end. This footnote extensively cites that scholar's work.

Now, I am concerned about the second part where I bring in my interpretation. I guess from the footnote people might think that the whole paragraph is based 100% on that scholar's work, despite the fact that some of it is also my application of her work/framework on my case study.

One could of course say that I could just take part 2 of the paragraph and clearly separate sentences based on my interpretation from the bits based on her work. But not only is this rather difficult and clumsy in practice, but it would also require me to basically provide the same footnote twice (first after part one of the paragraph and then at the end again).

So my question is whether it is fine to just leave things as they are with one footnote at the end, even though some of the interpretation in the paragraph is mine and not found in that scholar's work? In this case only someone who looks up that scholar's work would see what in the paragraph comes from me and what from the scholar's work.

I have seen historians use footnotes like this (just placing one footnote at the end of a paragraph) but wanted to check nevertheless.