Jump to content

Talk:Full-face diving mask

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

Get wet

[edit]

When was the fullface mask introduced? Who made the first one? Trekphiler (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big rewrite

[edit]

Done today.

Please feel free to comment, copyedit, request citations where they may be needed and suggest improvements. Or just make improvements. There may be mistakes, I will come back and look for them later. I am too familiar with the subject to be much good at guessing what is adequately obvious and therefore needs no citation, and what other people will want cited, so I am going to wait for requests. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

[edit]

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. Needs more refs and those which exist are mostly bare urls ☒N
  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. Fairly good coverage, could be improved, but good enough. 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. Reasonably structured. 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. 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. Sufficiently and appropriately illustrated. 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. checkY

Referencing needs a lot of work, otherwise quite close. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]