User talk:2600:8803:B600:ED40:8166:AE1:87ED:FB7D/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Everything in the article seemed relevant to the specific topic. There was not anything that was really distracting or out of place. I think it is all concise and makes sense. The article seemed to remain fairly neutral when presenting the information. It is noted in the article that the story of Agnodice may or may not be fully true. The article makes sure the reader is aware that the whole story of Agnodice is a topic of debate. It remains neutral and does not pick a side of the debate. I think that the historical impact of Agnodice on modern medicine is a bit underrepresented. I would have liked to see more information about Agnodice and what she accomplished. The citation links did work and directed me towards the author of the reference. I could only access one of the citation sources. Two of the links were not working. The one reference that worked was definitely reliable and fair. I do not think that there is any inherent bias within the sources. The information comes from these sources. The sources are respectable and contain unbiased information. Each claim had a citation to support the information and did so without presenting opinion. There is not any out of date information. However, the links to the sources do not work. These need to be added to the article. I think there could be more sources added to the article to bolster the quantity of information. The talk page only had a few comments. There are not really any conversations taking place. The article is rated as start class/low importance. The associated projects are: Classical Greece and Rome, Science and Academia, Greece, Women's History, and Women scientists. The way we discussed the topic in class was very similar to the way Wikipedia presents the information. The article goes into more detail but still discusses the importance of Agnodice and her impact on medicine.