Talk:Solo diving/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As this is the oldest on the GAN page, I'll take it on. I've no time just now but will start reading it probably tomorrow. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Better late than never. Have fun, and ping me for clarification any time. The article presumes a basic knowledge of scuba diving, but should be comprehensible to the lay person. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. I use my own checklist for reviews and I'll complete this as I go along. I always do minor edits myself. I've checked things like the images and stability which are fine so I can tick those straight away.

By the way, it occurs to me that the diver in the photos must have a buddy to take the shots, ha! Don't worry, I'm not pedantic. :-) No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Have done an initial reading so far and will start an in-depth one soon. I will need to understand some of the terminology but can't see it presenting a problem. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I've read it again with focus on the well written criteria and it's fine. I'm also happy with both the lead and the overall structure. I've ticked those boxes and will continue with the rest soon. It's looking good but I just need to be sure I'm understanding it. Apologies for getting inexplicably mixed up between AE and BE but fortunately someone spotted it. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through the article with a fine toothcomb and made more changes of the copyedit variety and I'm now well-satisfied that this is a good article. I particularly like the emphasis on safety because, no doubt about it, diving is a very dangerous activity. I did think about changing "redundant" for the lay reader but decided that I shouldn't because it is a correct term in the context of engineering systems. It's a really good read and I think I've learned a lot. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, thanks for your review. I do tend to emphasise the safety aspects in diving articles, becase they are often neglected by the people who try to sell as much training as possible, sometimes to unsuitable people. I am particulary happy to hear that you found it interesting.

The diver in the photo had no buddy on that dive, the photo was taken by another diver from the same boat, who was diving with somebody else at the same site. It happens quite often. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)