Jump to content

Talk:Swimfin

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

Split fins

[edit]
  • why are some split in the middle? - Omegatron 00:01, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

History and Trivia merge

[edit]

Force fins

[edit]

(Section copied from User talk:RexxS#ForceFins

  • People come to wikipedia for information, perhaps more information should be added to give that to readers in the other sections, instead of deleting verifiable, accurate, descriptive, and cited information within the Force Fin section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just picked up on this. The Force Fin material was originally written by an unknown, unaffiliated member of wikipedia. Somewhere along the line it was deleted, I simply came in last November, using the original wikipedia material as my basis, cited references verifying and clarified some details with encyclopedic material A further search of the MOMA libraries as well as those at the Metropolitan Museumk of Modern Art will lead you to the items within the collection. Try searching under Bob Evans as the Artist. If it is a statement of fact, its relevant. I will disclose I am a principal in Force Fin, and that gives me the authority to verify information written as to being accurate and factual.
    Force Fins are different than other fins, that is most likely why a section was dedicated to it by an unknown, unrelated wikipedia member initially. Those differences, in essence, only are stated in the text -- open foot pocket - what does that mean? It is described with reference to wikipedia defintions of the metatarsals, phlanges, etc., and direct text from patents cited with reference to the PTO. Polyurethane is distinctly used in manufacture and cited within wikipedia definition of the same. Power and recovery is essence of product differentiation and cited from PTO records... that's what you're deleting, and that is distinct, definitional, factual, and its blanket removal is hereby noticed as vandalism.
    If there is something wrong with the way in which I am using this talk section, please let me know, or permission to move this text to its proper location, with advisement to me, is given. I don't have the luxury of spending as much time on the computer as others, and do my best to be appropriate. WatermanFF3 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to discuss your concerns. To answer your last question first: no, there's nothing wrong with using this talk page and you're most welcome. The rest is going to be more complex.
    First of all, I have to remind you that the aim of what we write here is to create an encyclopedia. I know that's rather obvious, and I apologise for having to state it, but it's essential to have that in mind. As you know, the way we work is by allowing everybody to edit. The strength of that is in the sheer numbers of people who are willing to spend some time in doing it. The weakness is that it inevitably leads to different people having different opinion on all sorts of issues. The model of the way we resolve those differences is by discussing them until the vast majority can all agree on a solution - that is our concept of consensus. As a result, we have written down generalisations of some of the more common solutions and called them "policies" and "guidelines". Some of these are non-negotiable – the five pillars.
    There is a policy called conflict of interest (CoI) and it came about because once wikipedia became popular, it was seen by some as a easy means of promoting a product. Not everybody who has a CoI edits improperly, but some do. So we have that guideline to ensure that editors have advice not only on avoiding impropriety, but also on avoiding the appearance of impropriety. You see, people who have an strong interest in a product may feel they are "toeing the line" of the policies, but their enthusiasm for the product may lead a different view of its importance from other editors. Let me give you an example: as objectively as possible, can you see what relevance the display of a Force Fin in a Museum of Modern Art has to the subject of swimfins in an encyclopedia? Of course it's relevant to Force Fins (and no doubt justifiably a source of pride), because it's a token of acceptance that raises the status of that fin, but it's not really of much use to the reader who wants to know something about different types of fins.
    I know you are aware of the need to source claims and I believe you did so fully. However, you do need to be clear on what we mean by a reliable source. From the start, wikipedia was aware that anybody could create a website and place there anything they chose, within the bounds of law. That meant that we had to be cautious about how we treated sources. The policy crystallised as this: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So any website used as a source should be independent of whatever the text is written about. In this case, we would not consider the Force Fin website to be a reliable source for claims about Force Fins. That's not to say that we deny the accuracy of any claims, just their verifiability. We have no means of determining whether a claim made on a site is true or false, but we are willing to accept material based on websites that are independent of the subject and have a demonstrable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not an impossible hurdle, it just means that if Force Fins reduce muscle fatigue, then we're willing to accept that if we can see that a reliable third-party has done done a study which proves it.
    It's also worth examining the content of what you wrote. For example, I can see that you think that the use of polyurethane is important. But is it? Is it any better than using composites[4][5], polycarbonate[6] or carbon fibre[7]? If you know of a study from a reliable, independent source that clearly shows an advantage, then feel free to add something about polyurethane. Otherwise, what value does mentioning polyurethane have for the reader?
    Finally, I ask you to read our policy on vandalism and identify precisely from the given types of vandalism in the table, which one you think took place when your content was rewritten. As you are inexperienced, it is only fair to warn you that making unfounded allegations of vandalism is taken very seriously on wikipedia. You may wish to strike out or remove your accusation above, by way of apology. Given your lack of understanding when you wrote it, I'm content to treat it as rather humorous, but you will need to be much more cautious in future before you make further use of the word. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you RexxS but I disagree and would like to give readers the time to give comment before you deprive them of information. I therefore have undone your edits. I believe the designer claim is not of interest to readers. I am not the designer. Links to ForceFin.com and other product websites are left within the edits and the links to wikipedia encyclopedic information were deleted.
    Your criteria suggests that information should be based upon your value judgments, or should not be provided the reader at all. That is not the purpose of wikipedia for any subject.
    It does not seem to me that wikipedia edits should be made with value judgments as to whether "polyurethane" is better than other materials or not. We should precisely not make a comparative claim as to it being better or worse than other materials within wikipedia. We simply state why it is used, what relevance it may have to being used in making a fin, any fin, it just happens to be stated within the context of its use, that is Force Fin.
    Instead of depriving the reader of the the reason, why not give the reader more information within the context of the other fins. Why not explain what carbon fiber does for free diving fins, or rubber does for jet type fins, etc. To delete the link within wikipedia defining "polyurethane" is removing valuable factual information.
    Likewise, with respect to an "open toe foot pocket", almost all fins have openings which allow for water to drain, what is distinctive of the open toe box of Force Fin products, freeing up the metarsal and phlanges, with definitional links within wikipedia and linking to Science Magazine, or used to link to summaries thereof is factual information, and should not be deleted.
    We are trying to say these distinctions without value judgments, but with statements of facts. Your deletions are motivated by value judgments and for the reasons you state should be undone, and is the reason I have done so.
    If there is a better way to make these statements and still give the reader the information they desire, we'll gladly entertain in discussion, but please allow time as I have other work to do also. 98.173.211.205 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs)
  • If you guys don't mind my 2 cents on this... I tend to agree with RexxS that some of this information is not needed in this article however I do think there is enough information available to prove the fins meet Wikipedia:Notability. The publications that support my claim of notability are listed on the Force Fins site (news and magazine articles and research/ award publications). This opens up the possibility of keeping this article on topic and referring to a main "Force Fins" article to expand to the other information that is important to the fins themselves but not to a general overview that should simply state what they are.
    We do have to be careful to properly reference the sources (ex. Time Magazine article here). I seem to remember an old AquaCorps article that should be used as a reference as well.
    WatermanFF3, since you are a relatively new editor, an example of this can be found in the underwater habitat article SEALAB section. That article requires a brief summary of the project while referring to the main SEALAB_(US_Navy) article for those wishing to have a greater understanding of that project.
    Thanks for listening... --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've modified the forcefins section on more than one occasion, I'm happy to explain why (Although much of this was covered by Rexx). The main issues I saw were an undue level of detail, a lack of independent resources, statements that were impossible to verify.
    The section is almost double the length of other fins, as well as the broad types (eg paddle and split fins). No other sections include information on the number of product lines or trivia about modern art. The section is written in scientific style language, with detailed and specific descriptions of human anatomy, fin physical properties and design, but there is no way to verify this apart from trusting the manufacturers claims. As Rexx stated, there are specific descriptions without stated relevance ("Trailing edge mechanism"), that while sounding informative actually provide little information to the reader. To be suitable for wikipedia; claims of product benefit or improved efficiency etc need to be verifiable from sources other than the manufacturer. The museum statement can be considered trivia, and is borderline for retention. As there are differences between the wiki description and the museum website, it is probably justified for removal.
    While I deny any vandalism to the article, I would like to counter with my concerns of independence of the user adding the material since WatermanFF3 is the designer of the fins (as stated above) and claims be readding material written by an independent user, the curiously named WatermanFF2.
    Condense I vote strongly for a highly condensed version of the section (As Gene stated there is probably some notability), as there are too many unfounded unindependent claims. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Clovis. The MoMa note establishes some notability, but the section has way too much detail and a lack of independent sources verifying the relevance of that information. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source for Force Fin

[edit]

I have made the promotional claims about FF invisible pending provision of a reliable source. Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Please do not add this material or make it visible without providing an inline citation to an independent publication (not a promotional website). Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the refs, with less than a minute of googling. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't need to google, it's already in the page history. What could possibly make you think that a link to a manufacturer's website is a reliable source for claims that the manufacturer is making in the article? It is blatantly against WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; WP:SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable."
Here's the claim: "this human/fin interface and design [of Force Fins] minimizes a major cause of cramping from fins, which is caused by conventional fins forcing the joint of the ankle beyond the natural end range of motion, resulting in a ballistic strain of the lower leg muscles." and it's supported only by a cite to the Force Fin website. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, please don't restore material that has been challenged without citing independent reliable and verifiable sources for it. As Rexx says, this is the same improper sourcing which had been used before; a manufacturer's website does not qualify as a reliable source for promotional claims about their products. Crum375 (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted San Diego State University yesterday to request the thesis. Ryan Lindsey never published a thesis on this work. I am sure he wrote some sort of project summary, especially if the project was externally funded. Does anyone know how to find him or who his adviser was? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine Bob Evans would be able to find him.[8] --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could find Ryan, but what would be the purpose. Verify that the information is as he wrote it, that it was done independently of Force Fin, that it was his thesis and reviewed by his professors, which review culminated in award of his Masters in Science. With that verification would it be cited in the article? If the answer is yes, I'll give him a call and have him post here.
Absent association with Force Fin, the foundation given by his study is valuable to all divers. The industry tells you that cramping can be alleviated by eating bananas. A banana boost might be good for you, but divers are not potassium deficient as a class. Cramping from fins is among the top 3-complaints of divers, and the sooner the industry admits that its primary cause is extended plantar flexion necessary to hold a proper angle of attack when kicking a fin with a blade that extends from one's toes the better it will be for all. IMHO, with a lifetime of experience and basic physiology to back it up. WatermanFF3 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The study is interesting, but you overstate its value. As you know, there's been a lengthy discussion about the study on a scuba forum, as I indicated above; and there's no point in re-hashing it here. The study showed that one diver, on one day, extended his toes less using a Force Fin than he did with a single model of conventional fin. The rest is extrapolation from one datum point to divers as a whole, and from toe extension to cramps. I'm sorry, but the evidence just isn't there at the moment for those sort of conclusions. As for bananas, you should know better than to believe what "the industry" tells you. Hypokalemia is indeed uncommon, and cramps is far more likely to be due to dehydration, with calcium, magnesium or vitamin D deficiency more likely than shortage of potassium. You are right to draw attention to a probable linkage between plantar hyperextension and cramps – a good, published, peer-reviewed study would go a long way towards making your case. I do have sympathy with your frustration here. You believe sincerely that Force Fins would eliminate a major cause of cramps – and a lot of divers agree with you.
My personal view is that I'd recommend trying Force Fins to anyone who regularly suffers from cramps. But my view and your belief don't trump Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. And that's the point: studies that have been published in respectable journals - and PhD theses that have been reviewed and accepted - are acceptable primary sources, but we use them with care, preferring good quality secondary sources. A project done as part of a Master's course is very unlikely to come any close to meeting those standards. The nail in the coffin is that the only source we have for Ryan's work is your website, a self-published source. I understand you see me as some sort of undercover agent for another fin manufacturer, who is only trying to obstruct your goal of revealing the "Real truth ®" to the world, but I'm honestly not - take a look at my contributions like the featured article on oxygen toxicity. I only want to see this scuba-related article, which I care about, written to Wikipedia's standards. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add my 2 bits regarding the removal of the reference hosted on the manufacture's website. I have strong suspicions that the report lacks independence and is intended purely for promotional reasons. I am unable to find this report, or any by the stated, author on journal search engines and there are a number of features of the reference which make it suspicious. The reasons why are as follows:
  • It's written in a heavily promotional way with conclusions about the benefits of forcefins in the introduction.
  • Its tone is conversational, not scientific (although many scientific words are dropped in)
  • It includes no citations whatsoever
  • It has a sample size of 1, so no statistical inferences can be made
  • There is only one comparison made
  • The conclusion comes before the discussion (That would not even pass highschool science)
While an experiment may have been done, the fact that was not funded by the university, was not evidently published in a peer reviewed journal and must have required external funds makes it very suspicious. I think it is worth having the reference hidden until the actual reference (if it exists) turns up. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clovis Sangrail, Force Fin did not fund the study, nor did we participate in its design or execution. There are no hidden agendas. We are an open book, and fact check better than most scuba industry publications before publishing anything at ForceFin.com You will find very few peer reviewed studies in recreational scuba. University Professors granting a degree based upon the research is about the best you will find. - WatermanFF3 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A man does not need great funding or a rajah's treasury to do go fin swimming with various swimfins and record what it happened. He likely funded himself. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted material in Force Fins

[edit]
  • Following this post, perhaps it would be best to respond on this talk page, in the hope of finding some consensus on what should be included in the article. I'll place below the text that WatermanFF3 would like to be included:

"Force Fin" is the trademark for fins designed, developed, manufactured and distributed by Bob Evans Designs, Inc. There are over 30 models of Force Fins. They are distinguished by:

(1) An open foot pocket, that encloses over the instep, leaving the metatarsals and phalanges, toes free so the foot can flex, and cantilevers the force of the kick from the large muscles upper thigh. This eliminates a major cause of cramping from fins, which is caused by extended Plantar_flexion, having to hold toes pointed (lower leg muscles contracted) because the blade extends from the end of the toes. [1]

(2) Force Fins are made of Polyurethane. Polyurethane cross-links to hold to its molded shape at the molecular level, which works together with various design features, including structure on the underside of the fin blade that compresses when kicked against, recoils, and the blade responds by snapping back into its original molded shape. This snapping action does the work for the kicker on the recovery and generates thrust by moving water behind. [2] Use of polyurethane allows the fin to be designed with clean, or narrow side and leading edges, and without ribbing that can generate turbulence and impede the flow of water over the blade.

(3) Force Fins have trailing edge mechanism, the most well know of which is the upcurved blade and V-shape at the end like some fishes' tail[3], or [[9]split blade], with a curved trailing edge, others are outfitted with [[10]winglets], to channel and focus water behind.

The Tan Delta Force Fin is part of the permanent collections of the [[11]New York Museum of Modern Art] for changing the way mankind perceives moving through water, and along with the Extra Force Fin is part of the collections of The Costume Institute of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art.

I have no problem with the first line, nor with the description of the fin (although I would have cited it to the patent in the absence of a good photograph).

I think the following are claims of a medical or scientific nature and must be verifiable by a cite to an independent journal or site, showing a peer-reviewed study:

  • cantilevers the force of the kick from the large muscles upper thigh. This eliminates a major cause of cramping from fins, which is caused by extended Plantar_flexion, having to hold toes pointed (lower leg muscles contracted) because the blade extends from the end of the toes.
  • This snapping action does the work for the kicker on the recovery and generates thrust by moving water behind.

I think the following text is (1) inaccurate since other fins are made of polyurethane (shinfins, V-TEK split fins, and (2) irrelevant unless there's something about polyurethane that distinguishes it from other fin materials – in which case, let's see the scientific evidence that it makes a difference:

  • They are distinguished by: ... Force Fins are made of Polyurethane. Polyurethane cross-links to hold to its molded shape at the molecular level, which works together with various design features, including structure on the underside of the fin blade that compresses when kicked against, recoils, and the blade responds by snapping back into its original molded shape"

Similarly for "trailing edge mechanism" – if it's important, then give a reliable source that says so. Otherwise, it's no more than pseudo-scientific marketing blurb.

Finally, the least of my objection, which is indeed a matter of editorial judgement: The Museum of Modern Art/Metropolitan Museum of Art text. Let me make this 100% clear, I do not doubt (and never have doubted) that this true. It is eminently suitable for inclusion in the article Force fin – and I'll even offer to help you format the references there - but my judgement here is that it is far too trivial a piece of information for a general article on swimfins.

On that final point, I'd very much like to hear other opinions, because it's inclusion depends on judgements based on WP:UNDUE: "... discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". I doubt that anyone familiar with our core policy of verifiability is going to disagree with the other points, but even so I'm happy to discuss. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me add my view about WP:UNDUE. Let's say we find volumes of excellent high quality scientific third party reviews of one brand of fins. Even then, we should not devote more space for it, or otherwise highlight it more than any other brand, unless we have reliable sources telling us that this particular brand is much more notable or common. Otherwise, we'd be violating WP:UNDUE by over-promoting one brand over the others. Crum375 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a short comment in response to Crum's note, it seem's the swimfin article is working counter to what would be expected. There are only a few brandnames mentioned, and they all appear to be very small / boutique products. More dominant products such as Apollo's biofin which are regularly reviewed, unique designs, are widely used and have been tested are curiously absent.
BTW it would be good to have an image of a splitfin if anyone has one - I couldn't see anything on wikimedia. It could be swapped with one of the Beauchat images since there are two of them (As long as it still shows open / closed foot pocket). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clovis Sangrail, He who cries the loudest is generally the worst offender. What's all this fuss about my disclosed bias? I don't think that the purpose of the article is to list the many companies that make the many fins that are available, but to show the variations. Although we do make a split fin, they are distinctive in more ways than just their foot pocket design, as are all other models of Force Fins. To post a picture of Apollo's Biofin would slight the other 18 or so variations of split fins made by other companies under the same license agreements, an even stronger case of WP:UNDUE with respect to their models and the BioFin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would improve the article if we had a photograph of a split fin (from any manufacturer) to replace one of the two images of Beauchat fins as they are so similar - we already have illustrations of open- and closed-heel. I'd really like to see a good quality image of a Force Fin, since they are so distinctively different from most others. Waterman, do you have a good image that you would be prepared to release under a Creative Commons Share-Alike licence? I'd be happy to give any help with uploading if you needed it. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waterman, I have no preference for which companies split fin is posted, I was just suggesting that since they're very common it would be informative to include an image. Re WP:UNDUE, I can guarantee any fin producer will have arguements for the notability of their product, and I was pointing out that notability is not only determined by having particularly unusual designs, actual usage can also be considered. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bob Evans Designs, Inc. [[1]"The Foot Tells All"]
  2. ^ [[2]U.S. Patent and Trademark Office]
  3. ^ Bob Evans Designs, Inc., [3]"The Truth About Dive Fins"]

Franklin

[edit]

Franklin was a great guy, but since he also loved straightforwardness, in all due respects, it should be mentioned that his "fins" were worn on the hands, not the feet.189.38.128.134 (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Łasiński

[edit]

Did anybody try to consider this guy? The article is in polish, but they claim that he invented the swimming fins in 1914, while being at the Adriatic.

"Edmund Łasiński był wynalazcą płetw. W 1914 roku będąc w Porto Re nad Adriatykiem razem z prof. Fischerem wypróbował swój wynalazek." http://www.borzecin.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3071&Itemid=436

He is also mentioned as the inventor in the book 'I haj vivat Poznańczanie' by Marcin J. Januszkiewicz p.187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.105.162 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult for those of us who do not read Polish to use the reference, or to assess whether it is a reliable source. If you can understand and translate the content, and can explain why the source should be considered reliable, you can edit the article to include information from the source. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Swimfin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 9 November 2016 (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. Some sections uncited, but not much is likely to be controversial. At least some of them should be improved. ☒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.

    3. Looks OK to me. checkY
  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. Looks OK to me. checkY
  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. Some parts not clear. Partly insufficient information, partly poorly written. Lead and sections on Training and Power need expansion and clarification. ☒N
  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.

    6. Sufficiently illustrated. checkY
  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.

    7. Some parts not very clear. Needs work to clarify. ☒N

Not ready yet. ☒N • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swimfin&oldid=1205531681"