Talk:Human factors in diving equipment design

Section sizes Section size for Human factors in diving equipment design (56 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,603 2,603 General principles 1,218 3,599 Physiological variables 2,381 2,381 Breathing apparatus 1,622 10,194 Demand valves 2,120 2,120 Work of breathing 709 709 Hose routing 651 651 Rebreathers 1,905 1,905 Mouthpiece retaining straps 515 515 Snorkels 1,686 1,686 Dead space 986 986 Masks and helmets 781 11,797 Internal volume 1,502 1,502 Helmet buoyancy 1,231 1,231 Seal 1,226 1,226 Equalising 768 768 Vision 5,112 5,112 Security 1,177 1,177 Diving suits 445 12,644 Wetsuits 1,146 1,146 Dry suits 4,153 4,153 Hot water suits 4,376 4,376 Atmospheric suits 2,524 2,524 Harness 1,394 1,394 Buoyancy control equipment 3,894 3,894 Weights 1,556 1,556 Fins 2,888 2,888 Gloves 2,980 2,980 Cylinders 3,653 5,379 Cylinder buoyancy 1,726 1,726 Lifting bags 87 87 Surface-supplied gas panels 2,226 2,226 Communication systems 4,669 4,669 Instrumentation and displays 3,013 3,013 Cutting tools 500 500 Dive lights 1,464 1,464 Buddy lines 1,132 1,132 Clips and attachment points 2,349 2,349 Diver propulsion vehicles 2,510 2,510 Cameras 2,386 2,386 Surface marker buoys 1,372 1,372 Distance lines and line markers, reels and spools 4,055 4,055 Equipment storage 2,204 2,204 Diving chambers 5,532 7,188 Hyperbaric stretchers 1,656 1,656 Access equipment 256 7,425 Diving stages and wet bells 2,465 2,465 Diver ladders 986 986 Dive platforms and diver lifts 2,348 2,348 Recovery of an incapacitated diver 1,370 1,370 Tools 526 3,393 Tool bags, pockets and lanyards 2,867 2,867 Checklists 1,490 1,490 See also 237 237 Notes 740 740 References 52,415 52,415 Total 159,783 159,783

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Scuba diving Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Miniapolis, you tagged with copy edit, but did not give any indication of what problems you identified among the possibilities of grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. While I have no objection to copy editing, as it almost always improves an article, I could probably sort out most of the problems if I knew what you perceive them to be. Please give a brief description of what you consider needs attention. This will also help anyone from the guild of copyeditors who comes here in response to your tag. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report; pinging Beland, who generates the page monthly. This article is in good shape, although the lead sentence is ungrammatical; the verb should be are (agreeing with factors), rather than is. Beland's tool primarily picks up typos and punctuation errors; I (and other editors) give each article on the list a once-over to assess its need for copyediting. Since I tagged that page almost a month ago, I don't remember the specific issues with this page; a maintenance tag isn't a badge of shame, but feel free to remove it if it bothers you. Miniapolis 17:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: The specific problems found by moss were: "safety,it", "doesn't", "familiaristion", "bifins", "opaqe", "iclosed", "berween"

Usually when there are several typos like this in an article (or style problems - "doesn't" violates

MOS:CONTRACTION), it is an indication that there are grammatical and perhaps other spelling and punctuation problems in the surrounding text. The only way I know to find the other problems is for a conscientious person to read the surrounding text (if not the whole article, since it's unclear how widespread the problems are) and just fix whatever they spot. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Miniapolis, Beland, that is helpful. I will look into those details. It looks like mostly typos, which are an easy fix once found. Actionable feedback is generally welcome. I may leave the tag, as having someone else do a copy edit read-through is likely to uncover other issues, possibly with comprehensibility, which I am too involved to spot, (I know what I meant, but does everyone else?). Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, bifins is a commonly used spelling. so are bi-fins and bi fins. Monofins is the most familiar spelling for the single bladed arrangement, though I would not be surprised if other forms are used. Do you have any recommendations regarding identifying the most likely form to be acceptable? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngram Viewer may be helpful, though editors often simply refer to the sources cited in articles that are professionally copyedited. I'm seeing various forms in use around Wikipedia:

• wikt:bifins - Alexey Molchanov, Finning techniques, Finswimming, Flori Lang, Spain at the 2017 World Games, Swimfin, Underwater sports
• wikt:bi-fins - Constant weight bi-fins, Finswimming at the 2022 World Games – Women's 50 m bi-fins, Finswimming at the 2022 World Games – Men's 100 m bi-fins, Finswimming at the 2017 World Games – Women's 50 m bi-fins, Finswimming at the 2017 World Games – Women's 100 m bi-fins, Finswimming at the 2017 World Games – Men's 50 m bi-fins, Finswimming at the 2017 World Games – Men's 100 m bi-fins
• wikt:bi fins - Russia at the 2017 World Games

Usage on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily need to be consistent if multiple forms are equally acceptable, but to let the spell checker (and readers) know what's legitimate it would be nice to make Wiktionary entries. -- Beland (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting to B-class as good enough. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Fritzmann2002, Provided you will not be canvassing, you have the right to request further opinion, as does any other editor. I would like to point out that the topic is peripherally about diving, and mainly about the engineering of diving equipment to make it appropriate for safe and convenient diving. As such it contains material that is relevant to a large range of diving equipment, but from a different perspective, and should eventually become even more focused on the engineering design constraints and human interface aspects. The topic is also within the scope of mechanical and industrial engineering, ergonomics, and occupational health and safety. Expertise in diving alone would not necessarily make the subject matter familiar to a reader. What you call re-bloating may be what I call restoring relevant material that was removed without a proper explanation, and copy editing is expected to retain the meaning while improving the style.
If you can point out specific examples of what content you consider out of scope, and why you think it is out of scope, I am willing to discuss it. It is entirely possible that it can be condensed without losing relevant information. It would be useful if people coming to discuss the article have some background in at least one or two of the fields I mentioned. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could start by explaining in what way you think the guidance at

WP:SUMMARY has been blatantly disregarded? You are also welcome to point out content that you have difficulty understanding, I can try to clarify anything that you find too technical, but it is an article on a technical topic, and I am not familiar with your technical background, so it may take a few tries. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• "What constitutes 'too long' varies by situation, but generally 50 kilobytes of readable prose (8,000 words) is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long." Article is 80kb and almost 14,000 words.
• "Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent expressions, choose the more concise." From the linked MOS on being concise
• "Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections." Many of the subsections in this article are better served in their own articles. For example, there is an uncited 300+ word paragraph on peripheral vision of underwater masks. Much of this is duplicated in the Underwater vision article and is only tangentially related to this article's topic.
• For much of the article, there are large chunks that are unreferenced, or have references to primary sources or references that do not supply notability (Like the myriad diving manuals cited for best practices). They are, instead, musings on diving techniques or facets of the equipment. These cannot be split, because the resulting article would not be notable. Per SUMMARY: "Also consider whether a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia instead of creating a new article." That is what I attempted to do with this article by trimming that kind of material away.

I have no desire to comb through this article again, which I further hold is made up significantly of

cruft material. I take issue with your dig at my technical background; that should not matter. Technical articles should be understandable to a lay audience. In other words, I should be able to understand and digest it even without being an expert diver. Fritzmann (message me) 18:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• None of this appears to qualify as "blatant disregard of WP:SUMMARY" as claimed.
• What qualifies you to label content on this topic as "cruft"?
• I am not aware of any "dig" at your technical background. I am not aware of your technical background beyond your claims to have difficulty understanding the article, which could cover a wide range of possible technical backgrounds.
• Concision is desirable, but not obligatory. Using fewer words is good only when the intended meaning is retained.
• Unreferenced material can in many cases be referenced with a little effort. This is the preferred procedure as less content is lost through failure to understand. You have the right to question whether content is verifiable, but it is not good form do do so to make a point, as that is considered disruptive. Please feel free to challenge anything you have reason to believe is actually wrong, and it would be helpful if you could explain why you think it is wrong. It may be that a bit of clarification would alleviate the problem, and in some cases it may actually be wrong. None of us are infallible. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the content is now referenced. A small amount still eludes me, but it is content that should be fairly obvious as it is logical, and should be uncontroversial, and references probably exist in training manuals I do not have, or cannot conveniently search, so I do not consider it urgent and will probably get round to it some time, when I find a source by accident.
• Primary sources are appropriate for some content. The editor is expected to use their discretion and judgment, which is easier when they have some understanding and experience in the topic. You are welcome to point out any specific primary sources which you do not consider sufficient to support specific text. Please explain why you do not consider the specified content sufficiently supported by the particular source in each case.
• Once a topic has been shown to be notable, it is not necessary to prove notability of all of its content.
• Some of the subtopics covered in the article are notable in their own right, possibly most of them, and when there is enough content to split it out and summarise the local section, that may happen. I do not think that time has arrived yet.
• The article is large, but the way to deal with that at this stage, is probably to split it into two articles of similar size, if a good and intuitive distribution can be achieved. My first thoughts are a split between personal diving equipment and team or support equipment. There is also no rush to do this, but constructive suggestions are welcome. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]