Talk:Recreational diver training

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Scuba diving (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Scuba diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

BSAC Instructors[edit]

BSAC, used a combination of amatures and professional instructors. The BSAC instructors workign professional outside of Brittan is probaly the main reason that BSAC no longer is a part of CMAS. Balp 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

training topics[edit]

It is not clear to me where this list if from and what is supposed to include, e.g., clearly rebreathers are not an entry level topic. The charts might be useful, but only if they are illustrating specific progressions and/or aiding in a compare and contrast of programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4robert&me (talkcontribs) 20:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Diver rescue in entry-level course[edit]

I've removed this recently added text as the citation to the NAUI website provides no evidence that the entry-level course includes an element of diver rescue; the first indication of diver rescue on that page is in the NAUI Master Scuba Diver course.

  • "... both ... and NAUI[1] syllabuses and elimination from the equivalent PADI[2]course."
  1. ^ NAUI. "Scuba Diver Course". NAUI. Retrieved 26 December 2011. 
  2. ^ PADI. "Padi Open Water Diver Course". PADI. Retrieved 26 December 2011. 

--RexxS (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That, in point of fact, is not true, the NAUI Scuba Diver standard requires that all students demonstrate the ability to rescue a diver, and the NAUI Credo, on their web site states: "Anyone certified as a diver should be able to perform the basics of a rescue of a buddy diver."
So I ditched my mistaken reference, fixed the references to point where they should, and replaced them.Wiki4Thal (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad it's fixed, but what I wrote was true: "the first indication of diver rescue on that page is in the NAUI Master Scuba Diver course." I assume that the writers of the web site wanted to condense the overview of the courses so much that they lost some of the detail. Thanks for finding an accurate cite. --RexxS (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see the earlier language that specified that PADI had rescue as part of their entry level course and then removed it, which is the case, rather than the more innocuous concept that PADI simply doesn't cover rescue in the entry course.Wiki4Thal (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
That's fine as long as you have a reference to a reliable source which says that "PADI had rescue as part of their entry level course and then removed it". It's not explicitly stated in the ref you used originally (that I reproduced above). I seem to recall that it was the case many years ago, but I don't know of any source making that particular point. Sorry I can't be more help. --RexxS (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

B-Class review[edit]

B-Class article 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.
    Needs more references. N
  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.
    More detail needed on all levels of training. N
  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.
    Structure is acceptable and can be expanded to deal with additional information. YesY
  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.
    Looks OK. YesY
  5. 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.
    Illustration acceptable, but could be improved. YesY
  6. 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. YesY

Not yet. Expand and cite. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)