Talk:Underwater domain awareness

Definition and scope of the article
One of the first things I think we need to do is clear up what exactly the article topic is. We need to get a definition and scope description worked out and then ensure that the content fits those. Either can be improved as we go along if someone comes up with better versions. , your input could be particularly useful to get this sorted out.

A short description usually helps with this. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 14:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Distinguish from Maritime domain awareness
, this topic looks like a subset of Maritime domain awareness. Why should it be a stand-alone article?

We have two options here: I also note that the title should probably be Underwater domain awareness in keeping with Wikipedia's article title conventions for capitalisation. I await your comments. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) If there are convincing reasons why it should have a separate article, that is one option. It will be easiest to defend if sufficient reasons can be listed here.
 * 2) If it is a subtopic of Maritime domain awareness, we do not need such convincing evidence of general notability, and can merge the content into Maritime domain awareness, with a redirect to the section on Underwater domain awareness. This will be easier since that article exists and does not seem to have been challenged for notability. At a later stage if the content expands sufficiently, it can be split out again to a separate article.

Current page size is approximately 35kB - moderately large. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 14:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Maritime domain awareness is much smaller, at about 10kB. Merging might somewhat overwhelm the MDA article. At present both articles have more extensive coverage on India and the Indo-Pacific region, and would be improved by expanding coverage on other regions. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Possibly controversial claims
There are some claims in the article that must be referenced as they may be controversial or challenged as not neutral. I am requesting citations as I find them. If they cannot be referenced to reliable sources they may have to be removed. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of biased sections
The "Conclusion" section was deleted for two reasons. It may not be replaced under the same heading, and any part of the content must be discussed on this talk page for consensus to include before it may be used anywhere in the article. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It provided an excessively India-centric point of view, and
 * 2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedic articles do not have conclusion sections providing editorial analysis.