Talk:Decompression equipment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 07:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~A few items identified below for tweaking, but overall the article is in great shape.~~ Pass per improvements.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues noted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues noted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~Some in the ratio decompression section, should be straightforward to cite or remove.~~ Pass per improvements.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None identified with Earwig's tool
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm not seeing anything missing.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	~~I am unsure whether algorithms and planning should be in this article or broken out into a separate one.~~
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Well done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Excellent overall, but "part of a saturation system" could be more specific/improved.
	7. Overall assessment.	Once again, a good and worthy nomination which has been appropriately and collaboratively tweaked.

First Read Through

"Some equipment is specifically for these functions, both during planning before the dive, and during the dive." I don't like that second comma, and this sentence and the next could probably be tweaked a bit for ease of reading, especially since they're in the lead.

Some tweaking has been done. Let me know if it looks OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the decision to include tables and algorithms within decompression equipment. Convince me this shouldn't be split off into a separate article?

See RexxS' comment below. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"for example for 100 fsw (30 msw)" fsw and msw need to be explained.

Added links to glossary, will this be sufficient? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The choice of tables for professional diving use is generally made by the organization employing the divers, and for recreational training it is usually prescribed by the certifying agency, but for recreational purposes the diver is generally free to make use of any of the published tables, and for that matter, to modify them to suit himself or herself." That's a one sentence paragraph. I love to write them myself, but it should probably be broken up into separate sentences.

Split into two sentences. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bespoke tables or schedules generated by decompression software represent a diver's specific dive plan and breathing gas mixtures. It is usual to generate a schedule for the planned profile and for the most likely contingency profiles." The first sentence could be reworded a bit for more clarity, and the subject of the second one isn't entirely clear. It = bespoke tables? If so, we have a number disparity.

Clarified, with examples • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the Decompression software section you have a mix of Wikipedia citations and Harvard style. I'd recommend picking one and sticking with it throughout the article.

This was someone else's work, I will have to think about exactly what they meant and work out how best to express it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the citations with links per my reply to RexxS'comment below, please check if this is a suitable response. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think clarifying between a personal dive computer and a personal decompression computer would help reader understanding. I thought I was reading the same section again at first. :-)

Actually they are usually the same thing. I will rewrite to clarify. Dive computer is probably in more common usage, but both terms are correct, and personal decompression computer is the most descriptive version. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result, the diver can make a slower ascent than would be called for by a decompression schedule computed by the identical algorithm, as may suit the circumstances, and will be credited for gas elimination during the slower ascent, and penalized if necessary for additional ingassing for those tissues affected." I think the final comma should" go.

I am not that fussy about commas, this one can go. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is largely an empirical procedure, and has a reasonable safety record within the scope of its intended application." That absolutely needs an inline cite.

I managed to borrow Deco for Divers from a friend, and have tried to clarify the section a bit based on this source. There is no reference to the safety record, which I have left out. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not clear why this procedure is considered to be an advantage over the use of personal decompression computers which are programmed to allow for a variety of gas mixtures and gas switches during a dive." Sounds like someone else should have put a 'citation needed' tag but added this sentence instead. Regardless, clean up the ratio diving section appropriately.

I will see what I can do. Unfortunately reliable sources on Ratio deco are not common, and tend to be in training manuals not accessible on the internet. This may take a bit longer.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what I have done, and let me know if it is acceptable. That said, the original may have been OR, but the source seems to agree to a large extent. Anyway, the new wording is more specific and backed up by published print by an apparently reputable writer. (foreword is by Peter Bennett who is a notable expert in the field of decompression research.)• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that the series of images for decompression trapezes is wonderfully done? Good stuff.

Thanks, glad you like them. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More later, It has been a long day. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This is usually achieved by increasing the partial pressure of oxygen in the breathing gas, as substituting a different inert gas may have counter-diffusion complications due to differing rates of diffusion, which can lead to a net gain in total dissolved gas tension in a tissue." This should probably be 2-3 sentences.

I am having a surprising amount of trouble finding a better way of saying this. All my efforts so far have been longer and less clear. Maybe I need to get some sleep before trying again. Any suggestions would be viewed with interest.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to two sentences: This is achieved by increasing the fraction of oxygen in the breathing gas used, whereas substitution of a different inert gas will not produce the desired effect. Any substitution may introduce counter-diffusion complications, owing to differing rates of diffusion of the inert gases, which can lead to a net gain in total dissolved gas tension in a tissue. That's rather less concise, but I think there are several concepts being described in the previous single sentence, so perhaps we need a longer passage to tease them out. I removed "usually" because I don't believe anybody switches inert gases to accelerate deco. There may be an odd esoteric example that I'm unaware of, but I think we can state with some confidence that increasing the oxygen fraction in the mix is how it is done. Increasing the "partial pressure" of oxygen is, IMHO, incorrect as you could simply descend on the same mix to do that, and it would not accelerate decompression! --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with that. Your version is less ambiguous about the oxygen too, which is a plus. Over to the reviewer for further comment. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Open circuit scuba divers by definition are independent of surface supply, and must take any gas mixture with them that is to be used on a dive." must take with them any gas mixture to be used on the dive, maybe? I hate to be so nitpicky, but I see in your writing all the technically correct but unnecessarily hard to read sentence structures that I've tried hard to train myself out of using.

No problem, your version is less ambiguous, so is an improvement. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and that's probably enough feedback for now. I note that the tables & algorithms portion of the article is a large part of the total article text. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on splitting. The equipment used by divers to calculate and manage their decompression obligations is principally their personal dive computer, or their tables in conjunction with a timer and depth gauge. It would be difficult to talk about the equipment used if the article didn't explore how it is used, so I'd hate to see that lost from this article. While a split of those sections might be theoretically possible, I wouldn't advise it as this article really needs the "meat" of those topics. The sections are already a summary of four articles on algorithms; two articles on tables; and the personal decompression computer and ratio decompression article. It's also worth considering that this article was split in March 2016 from Decompression practice, which in turn was split from Decompression (diving) in March 2013. Should the size grow unmanageable, we should think more about devolving some of the detail into existing daughter articles, but I don't agree we're there yet. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes reasonable sense to me. Never done a decompression dive in my life. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Every dive is a deco dive" - it's just that some of them don't need mandatory stops :D--RexxS (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on referencing. The references may have been my introduction. In most well developed scuba articles, there are a mixture of sources: a few are the same book/manual used many times where it is necessary to give a different page number each time; some are journals or websites each one is a different source. My choice has always been to use shortened footnotes for the books with the page number in the short cite, and CS1-style for the long citations; and then to use the same CS1-style citations for journal, websites, etc. As long as that scheme has been used consistently, I've never come across an objection before, and that includes the Good Articles Nitrogen narcosis and Decompression sickness, and the Featured Article Oxygen toxicity. That's not to say that I don't see your desire to use precisely the same citations for every reference, but I'm not convinced that having to write out for the books the same long CS1 citation many times with just a different page number is actually an improvement. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, I think the citations referred to are in this paragraph:

V-Planner runs the Variable Permeability Model (VPM; Yount et al., 2000) and allows the choice of VPM-B and VPM-B/E, with six conservatism levels (baseline plus five incrementally more conservative ones). GAP allows the user to choose between a multitude of Bühlmann-based algorithms and the full RGBM (Wienke, 2001) in its five conservatism levels (baseline, two incrementally more liberal and two incrementally more conservative)

This is an isolated issue, a matter of finding the cited source, and checking that it is correct. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, the statements that the software uses the specified models is supported by the already correctly formatted reference, and the parenthetical comments appear to refer to descriptions of the models, so we might be better served by just Wikilinking to the short articles on those models and leaving out the offending material as redundant. I will do this and see if it is acceptable.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct--I was interpreting the parenthetical material as Harvard citations. Is it possible to clarify them such that if they're not, they don't look like they might be? Not a big deal, just a bit visually jarring and appeared inconsistent within the same article. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all I know you might be right about the original editor's intentions, but that is not how I saw it. I have removed the parenthetical material and used links from the model names to the Wikipedia articles, leaving less room for confusion. There is another reference already cited for the existence of these algorithms in software packages. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned with original intentions, so I'd rather see the article reflect best practice (if we can agree on what that is!). I'm no fan of hidden text, so I've tentatively restored the extra bits of information from Peter's edit, because we are usually better to provide a little description, if relevant, than to rely solely on a wiki-link. Our pages are printed out more often than we may think, and wiki-links don't work on paper! Naturally, I won't be offended if you revert me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the changes are looking good so far--we just need to get the Ratio Decompression settled out and this is headed for a pass. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens (talk · contribs), I think we have made all the required changes, the ball is in your court. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, guys! Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jclemens, a pleasure to work with you, and thanks also to RexxS. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]