Talk:Dive planning

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

Too Technical[edit]

This article is too technical and reads like an operation manual. There are a lot of terms/jargons that the general audience might not be familiar with.

Some eg includes

  1. Roles of diver attendants, Chamber operator or life support technician, In-water support team, Surface support team (what do they do exactly)
  2. Definition like transfer under pressure, deep bounce dives, decompression, Open circuit surface supplied diving, Hazmat emergencies, etc

♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 07:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added links to definitions and explanatory articles. Please let me know if this is sufficient, and mark any other terms you feel should be explained with an in-line [clarification needed] template. I am relying on you to identify the excessively technical terminology, as most of the terms should be fairly well known to divers, even at a relatively basic recreational level. Unfortunately if every technical term were to be explained in detail in the text, the subject of the article would be lost in the mass of definitions. Somewhere we must find a balance. If necessary footnote definitions could be provided. Your help is appreciated. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better. If you would like the article to be even better, I would suggest roping in other experts in the field to take a look.♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through and identified terms that I think might not be obvious to the lay reader. I've either wikilinked them or requested clarification where I can't find a good link. It is possible that some of the terms – particularly those most related to dive planning – ought to be explained in-line at their first occurrence, but perhaps Banej would be a better judge of where that would be best. Suggestions welcome. I should add that the {{main}} template is specifically intended for where a section in an article summarises another article entirely. The use of the template in several sections here was inappropriate and I've replaced each one with a simple link via the wording, which is what wikilinks are for. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RexxS, Thanks for your contribution, I will attend to the items mentioned. I also appreciate the information on the "main" template, as I picked up the wrong idea of how it should be used by observing how it is used. Live and learn. One small query, The clarification needed for "Delivery pressure at the same helmet". Does that refer to the meaning of delivery pressure in this context? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Banej, Could you check through and let us know if this is sufficient, or should I ask another knowledgeable diver to review? Please add any further clarify templates you think necessary. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pbsouthwood, I've gone through the article and have some suggestions
  1. There are a lot of information on Selection of techniques and mode of diving It can become an article by itself
  2. Diving team selection has the potential to become an article by itself too
  3. For Emergency Plan, creating a section specific to diving under Emergency management and referenced it?
  4. Likewise for Contingency plan?
  5. Summarised the section where {{see also}} and {{main}} are used.
It's always a good idea to ask other editors to review the article. They might have even better ideas on improving it. Hope this is useful to you. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 03:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, I will probably get around to expanding the article, and will look into the sections you suggest for the other articles. All editors are always welcome to make constructive suggestions, and the more specific the suggestions are, the more likely they will be followed up. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Citations needed. Citations added checkY
  2. 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.

    3. Looks OK. checkY
  3. 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.

    4. Looks OK. checkY
  4. 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.

    5. Looks OK. checkY
  5. 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.

    6. No illustrations. It should be possible to find something, even if only a few decompression tables. Added some illustrations, should be OK checkY
  6. 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.

    7. Looks OK. checkY

Not yet, Needs quite a lot of referencing, and a few images. just a few images needed. Added refs and images, promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dive planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dive_planning&oldid=1203351306"