User talk:Sakoundi/sandbox

Review of Rough Draft - Medicine in Ancient Rome
The draft of edits to be made to Medicine in ancient Rome is robust. Added sections are appropriately referenced and are from reputable sources. I like the sections that are flagged as being "added in" to supplement the original article. Specifically, the subsection for Asclepiades that is added appears necessary to the article because of his proximity to Cicero and what this association may have done to amplify the reach and weight of his medical opinion. While the reader can easily infer that association with a powerful figure like Cicero may have assisted in the proliferation of Asclepiades's professional opinion and his prominence as a physician, the section does not entertain this assumption directly and is neutral in conveying this information. That being said, specific references (inline citations with footnotes) throughout this section would greatly improve its strength.

The same can be said about the final section flagged for addition - Opposition to Greek medicine manifesting in Rome / Pre Physicians. Providing opposing viewpoints is important for any article, and this section addresses this directly. When speaking on opposition to medicine, which is difficult to do in a factual or logical manner, it is difficult to remain completely neutral without injecting the source's (Cato the Elder) bias. I think that this is done well, and would only suggest to maintain observing and presenting Cato's opinions and reasoning on the topic, and not inadvertently adding in what may seem like personal opinion. Again, this section is done well, and I only mention maintaining this stance to avoid any perceived bias. As with the section on Asclepiades, I would suggest adding in specific references throughout the section to eliminate any doubt that opinion was added, and that the section is merely presenting the views that Romans had in opposition to a more modern form of medicine.

-- Trinity2017 (talk), Sam Johnson