User talk:Talia298/sandbox

Peer Review
The Pyrrho draft does a good job of adding in missing details from the current page, and makes good use of reliable sources when making claims. I think separating the life section into different sections ("life" and "sources on Pyrrho"), as well splitting the philosophy section into a section on Pyrrho's philosophy and the philosophy of the Pyrrhonic Skepticism school. One thing I would say is to be careful of using terms that some readers may not be comfortable with and not defining those terms. Specifically, the rather technical use of "dogmatic" in the philosophy section might be unclear to some readers. The other thing I would note is maybe it would be a good idea to mention Diogenes Laertius as a source on Pyrrho. I'm not sure if you plan on removing the current sections that mention Diogenes, but if so I would say that it might be good to consider mentioning him at least in passing. Otherwise I think that this is a really well-written and informative article. I think you've done a good job of looking through sources and seeing what information is important to add and where distinctions between Pyrrho and Pyrrhonic Skepticism need to be drawn (which the current article really lacks). Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Sorry for this late peer review, but I hope this would still be somewhat helpful. I think you did a wonderful job reorganizing the Pyrrho page and added a large amount of contents that are both informative and well-cited to multiple sections of the page. You also changed and added many citations to both pages of Pyrrho and Pyrrhonism which I think is really important. For the Pyrrho page, I think it would be great if you could expand more on your article about the influence Pyrrhonism had on later philosophers, since from my previous research, Pyrrhonism had a really significant influence on the development of philosophical skepticism. So maybe talking more about this interaction would be helpful for the readers to understand the importance of Pyrrho. Also, it seems to me that the page for Pyrrhonism is still in general less developed. The structure of the page is a littile confusing, and there were large chunks of direct citations of primary source on the page that might not be so appropriate for a wikipedia page. I understand this page might not be your main area of edit, but I was wondering if you could use your edit on the Pyrrho page to help the page of Pyrrhonism as well since they are so closely related. But generally speaking, I really like your edit, and I think you reeally improved the articles a lot! -- Zhongshusheng (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)