Talk:Underwater breathing apparatus

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it necessary to have a full article on this topic or should this be a disambiguation page? The subtopics are quite well covered in their respective articles, and I could put an article together quite quickly based on the leads to the existing articles if this is considered worthwhile. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth keeping as a root article for the eponymous portal and navbox. I will expand some time. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a bit short of references, but as it is made up mostly of summary sections based on lead sections of other articles, sources should already be present in Wikipedia, and just need to be tracked down. Unfortunately not a trivial exercise, so must wait until I or someone else get around to it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked down enough references that it is now pretty solidly cited.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

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.  Done All paragraphs referenced, also individual statements as applicable.
  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.  Done It is a summary of several more detailed articles, each of which has a summary section with hatlink to the detailed article.
  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.  Done Let me know if you think I have missed anything.
  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.  Done Should be good enough.
  5. 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.
    6.  Done Adequately illustrated.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
    It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
    7.  Done Should be OK, let me know if more links or explanations needed. It is a technical topic, so some technical language is inevitable.

 Done Looks good enough, promoting to B-Class.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Underwater_breathing_apparatus"