User:Linus Robideau/Nordic Walking/Swanson04 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Linus Robideau


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Linus Robideau/Nordic Walking


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nordic walking

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead is a concise introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic and introduces many topics in the article including the parts added by Linus. The lead doesn't include every section in the article but does cover most of the main sections. The lead is around the right length and isn't overly detailed.

Content
The content added is very relevant to the topic as it expands the information of the health benefits nordic walking has. The content is also up-to-date as all the sources are from the last decade. The article seems to have almost all relevant sections to the topic although it could go into more detail about the members of nordic walking clubs. The article covers a Finnish sport so if they are an underrepresented group then yes it covers wikipedia's equity gap.

Tone and Balance
The content added is mostly in a neutral tone however the article is also pivoted towards the idea of nordic walking being a very beneficial sport. To create more balance there could be info on possible setbacks or negatives of the sport but then again it makes sense to list all of the positives.

Sources and References
All the sources used in the draft are reliable and up-to-date. The content accurately reflects what is stated in the sources and grabs the most valuable points from each article. The sources are all from reliable sources and two are experiments done to measure the effectiveness of nordic walking so it is some of the most important information available. I'd say all the sources that are used are reliable enough however adding another peer reviewed journal wouldn't be a bad idea. All of the links attached work.

Organization
The content added is well written, organized, and doesn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. The information added makes sense in the part of the article its being added to. The content added that describes the facts is clear and concise making it easy to understand the info. However, when introducing the studies, they could be introduced by their author such as "Muollo's study" rather than "a study" to make it more clear and line up with their respective researchers.

Images and Media
There were no images added in this draft of the article content.

Overall Impressions
The content added has improved the article. It adds a lot more specific information about how nordic walking benefits health and wellness. It also adds 3 more reliable sources to the article about nordic which adds to the credibility of the article. A big strength of this added content is that it gives specific areas that nordic walking benefits. Something that could be worked on in this content is that there are a few sentences that use repetitive wording but this is more of a nit pick than an actual serious issue. Also maybe adding a better transition sentence from the previous paragraph in the article will make the content have a better flow.