User talk:Wswendt/sandbox

Comments

Citation needed for pseudo scientific theories in the Antebellum Period

I think the article is pretty neutral and well documented, I would be interested in how perhaps even within the same History subsection there could be other divisions such as ones related to race or the seeminly big contribution of Dowler.

The only thing I would say is needed would be a little bit more clarity on the logical transition of the start of history. Why we go from advocating against doctors on souther diseases to the journal publication start? It could be more clear, without having to insert an opinion, just reformating. Creatorjppl (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Overall I thought the article was unique, and similarly I found it neutral which is good. I'd be interested knowing more about how Bennet Dowler was characteristic of the journal and how his views entered it. Contrasting it to comparable or rival journals, or at least providing some in text links would go a long way towards filling information gaps. Jhhayman (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This article, while grim, comes across as unbiased. It is necessary to cite why the articles are pseudo-scientific. If you cannot find sources which directly cite the fact that this particular journal is considered pseudo-scientific, it may be appropriate to simply write that the journal's general type of findings (i.e. race-based pseudoscience) have been subsequently discredited by the scientific community. There are several typos in the original, but I see they have been fixed already on your sandbox. I like the switch to a separate section on notable publications. Lastly, I would like to know if race pseudoscience was the sole purpose of the journal or if it published other notable things.Mathtrain (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Evans Civ Comment

This is a pretty well-written and researched article. If you need a little more content to fill out the word count, I think including more examples of articles that were published by the journal other than Cartwright's could be interesting, and would further illustrate what characterized Southern medicine in the Antebellum period. RWakely99 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)