Talk:Solo diving/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'll read over this one. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The history of solo diving goes back a long way." Can we be more specific?
• YMCA, NAUI, PADI and BS-AC" Expand or link your acronyms on first use.
• "By the early to mid 1990s a reaction to the perceived hypocrisy of the buddy system already had many adherents." What hypocrisy? Also, this is quite POV language.
• The "Reasons for solo scuba diving" has a lot of choppy sub-headers instead of being weaved into coherent prose
• "Most solo divers are normally gregarious and want to share their enjoyment of diving with others – they just want to do it when they get to the surface." Okay, I'm going to stop right there. This reads more like a brochure advertising solo diving rather than a neutral encyclopedic article on the topic.
• "In 2003, very few statistics existed regarding the impact of solo diving on safety." A 15 year old statement that no real statistics existed then is kind of unneeded. Something like "Before 2003, the safety of solo diving had not been widely studied" would be more meaningful.
• "how often do normal buddy divers both really fit into this particular description?" Again, feels like a brochure or that you're giving a talk about the topic, not encyclopedic in tone.
• "The core objective in training to be a solo diver is to become as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible, to be able to deal with any reasonably foreseeable problems without assistance, and to have the competence, fitness, discipline, skills and equipment that will achieve this result." Again; I'm going to stop even pointing out examples of where this article seems to be written from a pro-solo diving POV.

• I'm failing this article for two reasons, the sourcing does not seem up to par, I'd expect sources after most every other sentence or so on a topic like this, and for criteria 4, I do not find the article neutrally written, if I was feeling more critical, I'd stick a POV or advertisement tag on this article. I don't think it can be fixed in a normal hold period, but feel free to ask for reassessment if you disagree. Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles Thanks for the review. I will try to fix the actionable criticism, however I would appreciate clarification on a few points:

• The core objective in training to be a solo diver is to become as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible, to be able to deal with any reasonably foreseeable problems without assistance, and to have the competence, fitness, discipline, skills and equipment that will achieve this result." Again; I'm going to stop even pointing out examples of where this article seems to be written from a pro-solo diving POV.

  In what way is this specific item seen as pro solo diving? It appears to be a neutral description to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • You're right, I guess. Though it is a sweeping gnerealization of the motivations of the solo diver, it isn't specifically in favour of slo diving, my apologies. It could also use stronger sourcing. Courcelles (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

    It is not clear what is considered a sweeping generalisation of the motivations of a solo diver. As an encyclopaedic article it should address the motivations of solo divers in general, so I miss your point. If this refers to the core training objectives, that is a summary of what the training agencies state.

    Is that specifically stronger sourcing for the statement about the core objective, or for the whole article, or for some subset of the article?· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• [ec} In the absence of an explanation, there is no requirement for sources after most every other sentence or so on a topic like this, also, please explain what you mean by a topic like this, and in what way is it different from other topics such that it would justify an expectation for the density of citation you specify? Note that there are no outstanding requests for citation, so none of these sentences were actually challenged before your review. Please take the effort to challenge those claims which you consider need individual and specific citation, by adding {{cn}} to anything that you consider is not sufficiently supported by the next reference cited in the paragraph, so that the criticism is reasonably actionable. Without specific challenges we can usually assume that end-of-paragraph references are sufficient. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• "By the early to mid 1990s a reaction to the perceived hypocrisy of the buddy system already had many adherents." What hypocrisy? Also, this is quite POV language. If you read the reference you will see that this is actually a rather toned down summary of the author's opinions. Alex Brylske is recognised as a subject matter expert (author of several books on recreational diving). Maybe you could suggest a less apparently POV summation of his article. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• "In 2003, very few statistics existed regarding the impact of solo diving on safety." A 15 year old statement that no real statistics existed then is kind of unneeded. Something like "Before 2003, the safety of solo diving had not been widely studied" would be more meaningful. Clarified. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• "The history of solo diving goes back a long way." Can we be more specific? Yes, now more specific, will get refs in place soon. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)  Done
• *"Most solo divers are normally gregarious and want to share their enjoyment of diving with others – they just want to do it when they get to the surface." Okay, I'm going to stop right there. This reads more like a brochure advertising solo diving rather than a neutral encyclopedic article on the topic.

  This is referenced to von Maier, which I do not have, so I am hesitant to change the meaning of the material in case I misrepresent the source. Besides which, the statement is an accurate analysis from my personal experience, so I see no reason to change it. It is an opinion, but an opinion from a person who is recognised as an expert in the subject, and the opinion is not as far as I know, controversial. I do not see this as advertising solo diving or promoting it in any way. It is just a comment on the attitude towards diving in company shared by many divers who tend to dive alone. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  I have requested material to check this from WP:RX. I don't know when I will get a result. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The disputed paragraph cites Chapter 6, titled "Opinions", in Robert von Maier's book Solo Diving. He may be a subject matter expert, but the chapter isn't his opinions. It is a collection of 22 divers' responses to the question "Why do you solo dive?" In a very brief introduction, von Maier writes, "For the most part, the opinions have not been edited." When, in October 2017, I declined to copy the chapter as part of an earlier WP:RX request, I explained in an email the problems with the source (evidently not persuasively or forcefully enough, since it is still cited for the same text).

The first two sentences of the disputed paragraph ("The possible impression that solo divers are unsociable is often wrong. Most solo divers are normally gregarious and want to share their enjoyment of diving with others – they just want to do it when they get to the surface.") are original research. No part of chapter 6 could be paraphrased that way.

The remaining two sentences ("These solo divers take pleasure in this solitude and in the feeling of self-sufficiency for this style of diving, that one is not dependent on others, but is relying solely on one's own skills and capabilities. Finally, there is the sense of freedom, of not being impeded by the need to look after anyone but oneself and therefore being able to achieve one's own goal in the dive without compromising.") find some support in various divers' opinions, but they overgeneralize. Perhaps the essence could be salvaged by attributing the personal preferences:

Diving professionals Wes Skiles and Ken Loyst, among others, take pleasure in the solitude of solo diving and in the feeling of self-sufficiency for this style of diving, that one is not dependent on others, but is relying solely on one's own skills and capabilities. Other experienced professionals, including Bret Gilliam and Darren Webb, enjoy the sense of freedom, of not being impeded by the need to look after anyone but oneself and therefore being able to achieve one's own goal in the dive without compromising.

However it is remedied, the paragraph shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Worldbruce, Your suggestions above are appreciated and have been used in the article. I have removed the unsupported text and used your references with quotes. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• "how often do normal buddy divers both really fit into this particular description?" Again, feels like a brochure or that you're giving a talk about the topic, not encyclopedic in tone.

  This is a quote from Brylske (as indicated by the quote marks), and is fundamental to the specific criticism being discussed in that section. How would you suggest we should express the point? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• The "Reasons for solo scuba diving" has a lot of choppy sub-headers instead of being weaved into coherent prose

  This is true, I will try to rewrite in such a way that it is a smoother read, but without losing the identity of the reasons. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles, I would appreciate your response to the points above, so I can work out which points are actionable. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS, Cowdy001, and Atsme:, I may be unconsciously biased here, so I would appreciate comments from other experienced recreational divers on whether I am being reasonable and neutral in my response to the comments above. Any suggestions for improvement of the article would also be appreciated. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good review - more like an FAC but I prefer that approach - makes the actual FAC a bit smoother. Ok - you asked for suggestions (I'll try to avoid the nitpicking I know we all "adore"):

1. Lead - first sentence: "Solo diving is the practice of underwater diving alone without a "dive buddy"..."
2. History section...tighten up a bit. First 2 sentences: "The history of solo diving goes back to the origins of diving. The concept of buddy diving is relatively new." Consider smoothing out the flow with: "Solo diving has existed since the inception of diving whereas the concept of buddy diving is relatively new." I would not miss the following if it was removed: "After the invention of the "aqualung".... amateur sport." Use wikilinks to send readers to the main articles if they want to know more. With that part gone, I'd also change "Cousteau himself independently..." to "Jacques Cousteau implemented a buddy system..."
3. Buddy availability - either incorporate this subsection into the main section, or reduce the main section and include more in the subsection - applies to all in that main section.
4. Personal preference section....tighten - something along the line of: "Solo divers seek the solitude of the dive but enjoy sharing their experiences with others after the dive. Such diving provides a sense of self-sufficiency, independence, and reliance on one's own skills and capabilities. It also provides a sense of freedom which allows the solo diver to focus on their specific goals without the distraction, concern or responsibility of another diver." Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, feel free to pick nits when you spot them. Improvement of the article is the aim. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Item 1: Changed as recommended.

Item 2: Partly changed, still thinking about the other part - I don't want to lose the reference to YMCA.

Item 3: Thinking about this...

Item 4: I have decided to go with Worldbruce on this one as he has read the reference pointed out the specific problems of overgeneralisation, and provided quotes from the source.

References