User:Chriscarroll58/Walking meditation/Gallaz63 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Chriscarroll58
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chriscarroll58/Walking meditation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead is missing a description on the health benefits of walking meditation
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but there could be more unique information that could be included as you work on this article more
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is too concise. As you add more sections within your article, you can lengthen the lead to supplement those sections.

Lead evaluation
It doesn't seem like you've worked on this much yet, so I think that you can increase the length of the lead as you increase the amount of information in your article.

When you make additions to your lead, make sure to not write any part about it with more importance than the others. Have all "weight" in the lead distributed evenly, and have it reflect all important info in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, but it is not cited
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No citation so I can't tell
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think you can add a fair amount of sections into this article. You could add "History," elaborate on the "Practice" section, maybe add a "technique" section where you describe how to properly do it and what to focus on while doing it

Content evaluation
There's only one small section of added content, and while relevant and important, it needs to be cited and elaborated on. I like that you added "health benefits" because it is probably one of the main reasons people will be researching this topic in the first place. This section has great potential, but make sure you cite your sources.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it's just a statement of benefits

Tone and balance evaluation
Not much to say here due to the lack of information added in the article thus far. The information you have added is neutral, so that's great.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I can not review the first 2 sources because they are books, but the website is a reliable source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The online citation is linked to a homepage of a website. It needs to be linked to a page in within that website where I can actually see the reference that was used in the wikipedia article.
 * Are the sources current? The website is current, but the other two book sources are from 1999. However, they seem to be knowledgeable pieces of literature on the subject.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? 2 of the citations are to books, but the one that is linked to the cite works.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the sources seem good so far. Make sure to redirect the 3rd citation (online link) to a page on that website where you can actually see the reference that the wikipedia article cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think you could clean up the way the information you added was worded. I can understand it, but I think with a couple tweaks it can be written better. Please check the "organization evaluation."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Can't answer this question because of the lack of information added thus far

Organization evaluation
"Studies on the elderly, type 2 diabetes patients, and nursing students alike demonstrate wide health benefits. Although more research is required, there are numerous health benefits to walking meditation." - '''These sentences can be broken down into once sentence, or they could switch places in order to make more sense. Maybe something like "Although more research is required, there are numerous benefits to walking meditation that were found in studies among the elderly, T2D patients, and nursing students." From here on out, you could elaborate on what those benefits are'''

"One study of elderly women practicing kinhin suggests mindful walking." - Please go into detail on the study and how an elderly woman practicing kinhin suggests mindful walking

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No media added so far

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is more complete, but only in a tiny sense. The section added has huge potential, and once you add more information on "health benefits" as well as add more sections into this article, it will become very informative.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? "Health benefits" is one of the 2 main reasons I can think of why people would research walking meditation. Therefore, I think that it's a great idea to include this section.
 * How can the content added be improved? By adding more content. This article has a lot of potential, but has a long way to go in development before it gets there.

Overall evaluation
Nice addition of a very important topic of walking meditation. Make sure you add more information throughout the article in general and be absolutely sure to link citations. You can do it!