Talk:Human factors in diving equipment design

Copy edit tag

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

B-class assessment

B

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. Reasonably well referenced. could be better, but nothing controversial that I know of, so passing on this point. Y 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. Reasonably comprehensive, but probably things I have missed. Good enough. Y 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. May be things missing, but good enough for B Y 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. Good enough for B.Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Has some images. Not clear what else would be useful, so passing this point too Y 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. Looks OK to me. Y

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

Massive Re-Bloating after article trim

@Pbsouthwood: I am concerned about some of the recent changes you have made to the article. It has become vastly bloated again, copies content that is better placed in other articles, and blatantly disregards the guidance at WP:SUMMARY. Many of the re-additions are uncited and introduce grammatical errors or unwieldiness that were previously addressed in the copy edit. It is vastly over-technical and entirely unbroachable to an audience that is not an expert diver; a fact I can personally attest to because I read the entire thing and am not an expert diver. I would like to engage editors who are uninvolved in order to reach consensus on the proper scope and scale of this article, and hope you are in agreement on that request. Fritzmann (message me) 14:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• "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)

• 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)
• 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)