Talk:Dive profile

Dive profile has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 25, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Underwater diving High‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

distance and time

How long should it take a diver to reach a depth of 155 feet? Is there an average time to reach this depth or does it depend on the diver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.3.138 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asymtomatic bubbles

I am reverting this good-faith edit, as it contradicts what is true. The preceding sentence is undoubtedly correct, as the body will eventually eliminate excess inert gas. The issue of build-up of asymptomatic bubbles, leading to slower off-gassing on multiple repetitive dives, does exist. However, this edit gives the impression that such bubbles are never eliminated. Some dive tables, such as the SAA Buhlmann system, contain guidance such as "Take one day off diving per week" to allow the body to eliminate asymptomatic bubbles (and to allow for very slow compartments outside of the model). I know of no DCS incidents that have been attributed to bubble build-up when this sort of schedule is followed.

I would suggest that if the issue of asymptomatic bubbles is mentioned in this article, then it needs to be reworded for accuracy and an accessible source cited. Perhaps one of the articles on diving decompression or dive tables would a better place to explain this more fully. --RexxS (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I've tried to rewrite the section for clarity and to incorporate the issues above. Feel free to improve it. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class B checklist

B-Class-1: It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
B-Class-2: It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
B-Class-3: It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
B-Class-4: It is free from major grammatical errors.
B-Class-5: It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
B-Class-6: It presents content in an accessible way.

Articles passes on all criteria. --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dive profile/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 04:56, 25 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.	Not the most engaging prose, but it's certainly generally technically correct and appropriately detailed. * This may be difficult to improve, but I will bear it in mind. It is not a particularly entertaining subject. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No see also section. Lead is possibly too short, and should probably summarize the various profiles and cover their use. Fair comment, I will expand as suggested. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] * Lead has been expanded to mention named profile types and give a couple of examples. * I have no strong feelings on "See also" sections, but when I checked MOS for the general policy I found As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes, and there are already two navboxes with quite a good selection of relevant articles. A "See also" section would duplicate these, as I can't think of anything that should be in "See also" and shouldn't be in one of the navboxes. I will wait for your recommendations on this point. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.	What we have looks fine.
	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).	The second paragraph in Planning and monitoring decompression has two CN tags and zero actual citations. Records section is uncited. * Citations added to all statements tagged.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing looks particularly problematic, but see above. * All tagged statements now cited.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	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.	Fine.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appropriate.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Quite stable.
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.	All looking good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine, but it wouldn't hurt to spice this otherwise dry article up with a picture of a dive computer and/or a log book entry. Picture of dive computer easy enough, and done. My own logbook does not include graphics of dive profiles as it is a commercial logbook. I will add more if and when I find a suitable image. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements.

First read-through

Other than the lead and citation needed tags, this meets criteria. It's certainly possible to spice up the prose and images, but the bulk of the GA criteria are met. It's going to be ON HOLD until those are addressed. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, Thanks for reviewing, I will try to sort out the point above within the next few days. I do not foresee any problems. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt attention to the feedback. It now meets GA criteria. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, Thank you for your efficient review, a pleasure to work with you. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

If anyone has a suitable image of a paper logbook page with a standardised dive profile graphic as used for recreational dive planning, please upload to Commons with appropriate license, and link in the Records section. It does not really matter whether the page is filled in, but if it is, it should be filled in correctly. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]