Jump to content

Talk:Dive boat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B-class review

[edit]

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.

  2. Much of the original content is unreferenced. Mostly referenced now. unreferenced stuff is largely trivial and uncontroversial or probably OK but not important. checkY
  3. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

  4. Incomplete and empty sections.Expanded. Still room for improvement, but probably enough for B checkY
  5. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

  6. Structure appropriate and sufficient. Probably not omptimal, but OK. checkY
  7. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

  8. OK to me. checkY
  9. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

  10. Reasonably illustrated. Room for improvement, but accaptable. checkY
  11. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

  12. Looks OK to me. checkY

Not yet: Needs more content in some sections, and more references in older material. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good enough now, Promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boat diving

[edit]

This article is a redirect from Boat diving, so I have started to expand it to cover the subject matter of scuba diving from boats. At some stage it may be desirable to split boat diving off as a separate article, and even now, it might be better to call it Boat diving, and include dive boats, rather than calling it Dive boat and including boat diving. However this is not an urgent matter, and I plan to leave it until a few other opinions can be compared. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is fairly well sectioned for a split. Section "Emergency procedures" applies mainly to Boat diving and should go with "Diving from a boat", with appropriate summaries retained, The rest should stay. As there have been no comments or objections in about 6 years I consider a split uncontroversial and may do it when I have the inclination. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]