Talk:Interval walking training

Review

Good start, but not quite ready. Please view your Special:History/Interval walking training to see if I made any edits or left any templates. The prose is good, but you've significant work to do to "wikify" your contribution, including:

• using wiki citations
• linking to other article

Please develop a minimum viable product (something you are proposing for movement to mainspace) ASAP, and ask me for a review again when ready. -Reagle (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Dang.hazel, I have reviewed and worked on your article. I renamed your article from "outline," I fixed the dates in some of the citations, improved their placement, and added a missing citation. Please view your Special:History/Interval walking training. Given the size of this article, please move it to Mainspace as its own article. You can than leave a comment on Talk:Interval training asking for thoughts/feedback. -Reagle (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Dang.hazel, I have moved it to Article mainspace for you, please seek feedback, including on whether this merits being its own article or whether it should be merged. Reagle (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 9 January 2026 and 17 April 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dang.hazel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Matheson.emma, Bisonoturull.m.

— Assignment last updated by Samantha (Sami) L (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello! Great job!! This is so well written and it is easy ti follow. your sections on history, method, and research make this well organized. I made some minor edits to improve grammar and fluency for clarity. To further improve your article I would recommend you to add more visuals to it, maybe add a picture which shows a representation or look and feel of interval walking this can help improve engagement! Overall you did amazing and this is really well done! --Bisonoturull.m (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback: Source diversity/Notability

This looks like a great start. Have you checked Japanese wikipedia for a sister article? One issue could be that many of your references, though high-quality and peer-reviewed, seem to be from the inventors of the method. A passerby could also argue that the article reads a little promotional (MOS:PUFFERY) as it seems to disproportionately emphasize the role of Nose and Masuki. It may be worthwhile to find some additional references from a wider community of scholars to justify the description of "broader international attention" e.g. adoption in health programs outside of Japan. Finally, if it was part of a public health campaign, there ought to be more coverage out there in addition to the CNN article.

I am a newer editor, so if a more experienced editor disagrees, I would appreciate feedback on the feedback! Gebble (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)