Jump to content

Talk:Middle ear barotrauma

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

Importance as a diving topic

[edit]

Fairly important, as it is the most common diving related injury, at nearly 50%.(Nofz, Lyndon; Porrett, Jemma; Yii, Nathan; De Alwis, Nadine. "Diving related otological injuries". www1.racgp.org.au. Reprinted from AJGP vol 49, no 8, August 2020 The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners 2020.) There is sufficient literature to easily establish notability, it is mainly a matter of someone getting around to it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

[edit]

Should be close · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Pass.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. Looks OK to me 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. Looks OK to me. Follows WP:MEDMOS.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. Looks 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. Some images would be nice but it is not a topic that is conducive to illustration. 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, though a couple of items could be clarifiedcheckY
All boxes ticked. Good enough for B-class for WPSCUBA.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]