Jump to content

Talk:Diving cylinder/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Review intention

[edit]

I am intending to review this article as the nomination has been sitting at WP:GAN since 11th June 2015 (and is the eight oldest nomination (see [1]) . However, looking at [2], I've done ten edits to this article, which represents 1.3% of the total number of edits to the article. I don't see this a "conflict of interest", but having posted this Note I'm going to wait one week so see if there are any objections on this basis, before I start reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, there are whole sections / subsections of this article that are unreferenced: Terminology (two out of three paragraphs); Parts of a cylinder (The pressure vessel; (most of) Aluminium cylinders; Manufacture; Steel cylinders; The cylinder valve, etc, etc, .....).; and Applications and configurations of diving cylinders, for starters. I would have sufficient grounds to "quick fail" this article on that basis. That however, would be unfortunate, as the article appears comprehensive in respect of coverage and some parts of the article are well referenced. Furthermore, while this article might be "B-class" in terms of material content, it really aught to be "C-class" overall (see [3]) due to lack of citations, overall. I respectfully suggest that this time (see above) be spend productively. Pyrotec (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pyrotec, Thanks for your comments so far. I am confident that I can easily reference almost anything that needs references. I am closely involved in the diving industry and most of the material seems obvious and common knowledge to me, therefore the value of your comments. As I have difficulty recognizing what may be controversial or may for other reasons need referencing, please just slap on a [citation needed] for each paragraph/sentence you think needs a ref and I will get one. Most will probably be referenceable from the US Navy Diving Manual (available online) and the NOAA Diving Manual (not available online), which are somewhat large documents. If you want page numbers or section numbers please specify. This may take a little longer.
The article is looking much better now. Sorry, as this is a review I won't be putting [citation needed] flags on the articles, they will itemised on this review page. My experience with cylinders etc is from a UK perspective, but some years ago I had access to ASTM, European and Nato diving documents (which is no longer the case). Pyrotec (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule-of-thumb, Peter, every paragraph in a Good Article should normally have at least one citation, if only to indicate the source of the information there. Another rule-of-thumb is that any article or journal entry that is no more than a few pages long doesn't need a page/section number, but any source longer than that ought to have an indication of where the citation refers, as a courtesy to the reader who wants to examine the source without having to read the whole of a lengthy document. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been adding references as I find them. Mostly it has been really easy, but I have not always been able to find good reliable sources available on-line, so a fair amount will require off-line checking, and a few of the references may be difficult to get in some parts of the world. So it goes. Alternatives may be available to other people that I can't get hold of too, so if you can fill in some of the gaps or supply alternatives, please do. I am also wondering how much I need to reference the calculations because they are basic physics, and my most useful reference is probably going to be difficult to get outside of South Africa. On the other hand, the same information should be available in several training organisations' manuals. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's always a problem when you try to work on an article that others have written. Normally we should be reading the sources first and then writing the text; it's far harder work trying to justify someone else's unreferenced text. When I get a chance to fetch out the training manuals I have, I'll see if I can add any more cites. The principle behind verifiability is that somebody could reasonably access the source - it doesn't have to be everybody, so don't worry too much about citing documents that may be harder to find outside of SA, as long as somebody could find them in a library or archive, for example. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not going to fail on the gas calculations; and furthermore if its a "trivial problem" I may well fix it myself rather than log it here as a problem to be fixed by someone else. What I'm not going to do as a reviewer is to re-write sections (if that happens to become necessary for any reason). A reference for 10 metres of water = 1 bar would help (it's in the PADI manual but I don't think I have one to hand). Pyrotec (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for hydrostatic pressure in the USN Dive Manual is:
  • U.S. Navy Supervisor of Diving (2011). U.S. Navy Diving Manual (PDF). SS521-AG-PRO-010 0910-LP-106-0957, revision 6 with Change A entered. U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command. sec.2-9.3 p.134.
Although you have to know that 33 feet is approximately 10 metres and 1 bar is approximately 1 atmosphere (both of which are accurate to about 1%). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also in NORSOK U100, which was at <ref name="NORSOK U100">{{cite book|last=Staff|first=|title=NORSOK Standard U-100 : Manned underwater operations |url=http://www.standard.no/PageFiles/13273/u100e3.pdf|edition=3|date=April 2009|publisher=Standards Norway |location= Lysaker , Norway}}</ref> but the link is dead now, possibly because the standard was revised in 2014. It seems to be paywalled now. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a conversion site at http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/EN/units-converter/pressure/58-22/meter_sea_water-bar/ Would this be an acceptable reference? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And used my old BSAC manual. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

[edit]
  • I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting with Terminology going down to the end and then doing the Lead. This is likely to take a few days; and at this stage of the view I will mostly (perhaps entirely) be concentrating on any "problems" that I see. So, if a section / sub-section is not mentioned here, that implies that I've not found a problem (or perhaps there was a minor one that I fixed during the review).
    • Feel free to respond to a specific comment (in-line) beneath it. That way is a bit easier for me to keep track of the review.
  • Terminology -
    • Looks OK. I added compressed to "..... typically contain (compressed atmospheric) breathing air, or ....", since "atmospheric" could be construed to mean "unpressurised". (N.B. otherwise, this section does not say that the gas is presurised; however as it is about the use of (a) cylinder(s) to provide breathing gas that implies the gas inside is compressed). Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of a cylinder -
    • The pressure vessel -
  • I would not disagree with what is written in respect of composite cylinders, however I was told, perhaps 20 years ago, that another reason was that it would be (very) difficult to do a visual inspection for any external corrosion of the aluminium pressure vessel below it's fibre/resin wrap. Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a vague memory of hearing the same thing, also that the filament wound cylinders are more expensive and have a limited service life, but I don't have any references for any of those statements. That they are lighter and more buoyant is testable by anyone with a scale and a bath of water. I know that for some military applications (multi-purpose rebreathers, like the Russian IDA 72) composite cylinders have been used, but those rebreathers are also used for high altitude parachute jumps, and though I actually own one, I have no citable reference. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more a problem with carbon fibre as glass fibre wrapping is to some extent translucent. Also, cylinders are commonly specified as suitable for a purpose by the manufacturing standard, and I don't know of any manufacturing standard for composite scuba cylinders, but I don't think that is in scope. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFR Title 49: Transportation PART 173—SHIPPERS—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND PACKAGINGS §173.301b Additional general requirements for shipment of UN pressure receptacles. (g) Composite cylinders in underwater use. A composite cylinder certified to ISO-11119-2 or ISO-11119-3 may not be used for underwater applications unless the cylinder is manufactured in accordance with the requirements for underwater use and is marked “UW” as prescribed in §178.71(o)(17) of this subchapter. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9f2b8887057f9840be279234a83408d7&mc=true&node=pt49.2.173&rgn=div5#_top This may be relevant. storing it here in case it is useful. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that there are composite cylinders rated for underwater use, up to 300 bar WP, legal in USA and used by public safety divers. Relevant and referenced text has been added to the article in relevant sections. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aluminium cylinders -
  • What's "warm water", for diving? Perhaps a heated swimming pool rather than a quarry full of (cold) water, or may be Western Hemisphere Warm Pool? Perhaps its just the absence of the need for thermal insulated dive suits? Some clarification is needed.
  • It is a vaguely defined concept, Tropical waters where insulated dive suits are not required would be considered warm, waters where a dry-suit or 6mm wetsuit are needed would be considered cold, and there is a relatively vague intermediate temperature range, but I may be able to find a reference. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the wording so that it is clear that is not the water temperature that is relevant, but the suit buoyancy. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steel cylinders -
  • "cold water"? (see above).
  • As above, it is not the temperature that is relevant, it is the buoyant insulation worn because of the temperature. If you think this need further clarification, let me know (or do it yourself if you like) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This subsection is unreferenced. Nothing controversial or counter-intuitive, but it does standout as unreferenced.
    • Connection to the regulator -
  • It would be helpful to have a citation for the DOT rule on (NOT) transporting 300 bar cylinders on public roads.
  • It seems that there is no specific pressure constraint, more that there are no DOT standards for 300 bar cylinder manufacture, and that most 300 bar cylinders do not have a special permit (exemption). The text has been altered to suit and is now in the Transportation section under USA. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those documents are usually heavily paywalled, I can't afford to buy them just to check. I will look for a reference, but am reasonably sure that it is never specified in catalogs by suppliers other than by the thread count or pressure rating.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a few internet references. It looks like they all refer to the same source or to each other, as a lot of the text is identical in all of them, Maybe they will do. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not expecting anyone to pay to get standards, but for instance in my public library I can log on using my library card to view, but not print nor save, British Standards. Those "A clamps" (from the figures along side) appear to be ISO 12209-2, so in the UK they might be available as BS ISO 12209-2 (or possibly BS EN ISO 12209-2) standards and perhaps in Germany as DIN ISO 12209-2 (or possibly DIN EN ISO 12209-2) standards; if so, I could view it. I was just hoping that some catalog such as e.g. http://www.midlanddiving.com/diving-equipment/din-basic-valves gives a standard No.; and perhaps you have an answer there. Pyrotec (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The valve in the MDE link is an example of the lower pressure DIN connection which can be modified for yoke connector by addition of a threaded plug. As far as I know the EN and BS documents you refer to specify a large range of valve types for different applications and gases, probably including, but not restricted to, both the high and low pressure diving regulator and cylinder valve DIN connections. As I don't have access to the documents, I cant be more specific. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original DIN standards are mentioned by number in the text. This should allow checking by anyone who has access • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pressure rating -
  • I'm not too keen on those first three uncited statements.
  • EN 144-3:2003 is only mandatory in Europe, so "..... From August 2008, these were required for all diving equipment used with nitrox or pure oxygen" is somewhat controversial. I'm sure a European Directive could be found for Europe, but what about the rest of the world (the USA, etc).
  • As far as I know this only applies to Europe. I don't know, but cant imagine it having any status in the USA, and do know that it does not apply in South Africa. I have no information on other regions, but my best guess is that this is Europe only. I have changed the text to specify this. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reserve valves -
  • I've come across an abbreviation "SPG" which appears to be undefined before or anywhere else e.g. perhaps it is "submersible pressure gauge(SPG)"?
  • Cylinder pressure rating -
  • OK.
  • Cylinder capacity -
  • OK (but references for the first three subsections would improve the article).
  • I will see what I can do.
  • Internal volume should not be a problem. -ref added.
  • Standard sizes: I am not sure how to deal with this. Do you want each size cited (simple but very tedious), or each application cited (not so simple, even more tedious) or both, or something else?
  • Applications and configurations of diving cylinders -

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of this section is unreferenced or sparsely referenced. Arguable the text down to Rebreathers possibly has adequate references; as does the final paragraph: For safety, divers sometimes carry .....
  • The two paragraphs that appear to be concerned with Rebreathers are unreferenced.
    • Open-circuit scuba -
  • This subsection is almost without references (it has one only); and non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 2.
  • In particular it is making "Recommendations" and/or "not-recommended", stating National practice(ices); personal opinions, i.e. "Some divers consider that ....".
  • That comment was intended as a report that the opinion is held by some divers, not as a recommendation or guidance. However I have changed the wording. As I understand it it is acceptable to report national practices, organisational recommendations and general trends provided that they are not represented as anything else. At present I have no reference to cite, so have removed the report of a common opinion.
  • Also looking for more refs • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closed-circuit Rebreathers -
  • This subsection is entirely without references.
    • Surface supplied diver emergency gas supply -
  • OK.
    • Emergency gas supply on diving bells -
  • The statement "Diving bells are required to carry an on-board supply of ...", aught to have a citation.
  • Gas calculations -
  • The abbreviation "IMCA" needs introducing, or wikilinking, at its first occurrence.
  • BCD appears here and in Safety, but I think here is its the first occurence (I know what it is), but it needs introducing, or wikilinking.
  • In Diver gas consumption: "msw" and "fsw" need introducing, or wikilinking, at their first occurrence (as per "cfm"). Note: I worked out the first one immediately, but the second stumped me for few minutes.
  • In Breathing gas endurance: should "cracking pressure" be introduced, or wikilinked, as it appears to be a technical term?
  • Filling cylinders -
  • Considering the first paragraph, only for now: what is written in sensible and good advice, but I have two comments:
  • When filling an oxygen cylinder the requirement is breathing quality oxygen, so perhaps we don't necessary need a gas blender? Note: in the paragraph below, oxygen decanting is covered, so perhaps a minor edit in needed.
  • I'd suggest that there are addition constraints: The filling is done by the cylinder owner, or his representative (in the UK I can't rent an industrial gas cylinder and refill it myself; perhaps, if I've rented a dive cylinder I can pay any dive shop refill it, but perhaps I have to take it back to the owning diveshop?). The cylinder should be capable of accepting the gas charge (i.e. don't put 300 bar into a 200 bar cylinder) and the cylinder is within it's period test and inspection date(s). Note: The need for the cylinder to be correctly labeled as to its intended contents: however, that appears in the paragraph below and in the Safety section. I suggest a link or a "(see Safety section) is added.
  • I will mention legal constraints which will vary by jurisdiction. I don't know what they are in most places. In SA you need written permission from the owner of the cylinder to fill it, the cylinder must be in test and suitable for the gas to be filled, the cylinder may not be filled above the developed pressure for the temperature reached when it is filled, and it must be done by a competent person. This is probably a fairly common arrangement, but I have no references for other countries. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you or RexxS or Gene Hobbs can help with either the some referenced text or suitable online references for the situation in UK and USA, it would be appreciated. Similar for other countries if possible. • • •Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last but one paragraph: "Contamination by water during filling ...". If it's an oil lubricated compressor, it will not be "fresh Water", more likely, water and oil/water emulsion.
  • I have added emulsion as a possible contaminant, but it is possible to get water contamination if the oil is adequately removed but the air is still too humid with water vapour which can condense in the cylinder on cooling. I have seen many compressed air purity tests which fail only on water content. - oil, CO and CO2 well inside limits, but high moisture content, and the moisture is usually not liquid in the air supply from the compressor. This may be a consequence of a warmer climate.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspection and testing -
  • OK.
  • Safety -
    • First paragraph is OK.
    • As is the second paragraph in correct (in theory), but see also the last paragraph of Filling cylinders. What about a sniff test, or a function test on the valve, on a full 300 bar cylinder, etc.
    • Accidents, Handling -
  • OK
    • Long term storage -
  • In general what is written in correct, however I don't think that is the full story: there is (generally) a five year cylinder inspection cycle, so cylinders outside their inspection period "aught" not to be used. If they were medical gases (which they are not), the contents would be "life-ed" and good storage guidelines would insure that oldest stock was issued first (the cylinders may not have a filling date, but there might be a filling certificate which would be dated and signed) and that might be cylinders with the least "life" left on their cylinder test cycle.
  • Scuba cylinders have different inspection/test cycles in different countries, and I know that In SA there is no restriction on using an out of test cylinder, but it may not be filled, so no local restrictions on transporting out of test in SA, but for commercial purposes transport of cylinders in US the DOT requirement is they must be in test if filled to over 40psi (IIRC). I don't have information on other countries. It gets complicated. If you have any suggestions, please go ahead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Transportation -
  • This is entirely USA-based and broken down into USA, (USA) land and air. Europe for instance, would not accept DOT cylinders unless they were also to EN or ISO standards.
  • From a global perspective (which is what wikipedia needs): there is land transportation (with separate Road and Rail agreements), sea transportation and air transportation. Land (Road) transportation of Dangerous Goods (filled cylinders) is covered by U.N. Regulations (and in Europe we have ADR rules as well); sea by International Maritime regulations; and, air by International Air Transport Association regulations (see Dangerous goods, UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and International Air Transport Association).
  • Perhaps a {{see also}} or a {{main}} link to Dangerous goods might be helpful for the reader. Since this is a "personal suggestion", as I GAN Reviewer I can't enforce this one.
  • Any suggestions that will improve the article for the user will be incorporated if reasonably practicable. I am constrained by the available references. I have access to most of the relevant legislation for SA, as I work with it, and for the USA as they have the admirable tendency to make federal legislation freely available on the internet. Other countries often paywall this sort of information. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the UN agreement and the European ADR and RID agreements are (were) on the web but are large multiple pdf files - they are updated almost annual. IATA has to be bought annually in either book or CD form.
  • ADR (Europe and by Road) is 1254 pages long, but gases are Class 2 (also subdivided on sub-class). ADR does not apply to gases in retail packaging for THEIR personal, domestic, sporting activies, etc (so the diver can carry their own cylinder(s) Para 1.1.3.1 (page 6 of the annex - 30 of the pdf file), but that excludes diveshops etc; nor to uncleaned cylinders containing less than 2 bar (para 1.1.3.2 (c) - pdf 31). Para. 1.1.3.3 refers to excepted quantites, specifically para 1.1.3.3.6 (pdf - 34) so there is a 1000 kg net mass (i.e. gas mass) for typical diving gas mixtures, above that ADR applies.{At one time I vaguely remember that equated to W.C. so 1000 kg = 100 filled 10 litre cylinders, or 95 10.5 litre ones}. Note: under ADR its a 10 year (max) inspection and test cycle. Pyrotec (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the file: it is, as you say, large, and not easy to search. However it appears to correspond very closely to the information I got from the UK Guidance note 27. The excepted quantity/threshold for Class 2,2 is indeed 1000litres WC, not 1000kg. 10 year cycle is typical for industrial cylinders, diving cylinders in Europe is 5 years hydro test and 2.5 years visual inspection. This is already in the article. I will check that there are no differences between GN27 and ADR, and add the ADR references. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's the other way round. GN 27 is UK (national) guidance on how comply with ADR; and ADR is an European agreement at the UNECE on Road transport of DGs, based on the UN Model Regs for transport of DGs. I agree that in diving its a 2.5 & 5 year inspection / test cycle (as per the comments above). However the UN Model regulations have very detailed (design requirements) requirements on what they call "packaging", but it's specifically the design specification for the cylinder, valve, labelling, colour coding, testing etc. The fact that dive cylinders have shorter test cylinders is neither here or there (since it is "better" than the UN Model Regs) on whether it is "legal" to transport these dangerous goods. See Packing Instruction 200 (pages 39 - 53 and Chapter 6.2 in Volume II, (Note: P.I. 200 = pdf pages 49 - 63 and Chapter 6.1 = pdf 221 ff) at http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev19/19files_e.html Note: as I think the article already states, in diving it's (at most) UN 1002, 1006, 1046, 1066 & 1072 gases. [I find it easier to use printed copies of the whole Regs., but I'm not printing this lot out at home). Pyrotec (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Like you said. So if GN 27 and ADR say the same thing, it should be good for Europe in general, and UK in specific. I will look at PI200, and those additional UN gases you mention. I do not understand the relevance of the 10 year test cycle for diving cylinders. As I understand it, they must be in test to be filled. Can they be transported out of test for diving purposes but within 10 years of last hydro/inspection? I have not seen anything anywhere to state this is then case, nor that it isn't. I know the requirements in SA, but have never needed to know them for other countries. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider, first, industrial gas cylinders: they have a ten year inspection cycle and the UN Model Regulations also require a ten year test cycle. They can't be filled if the test(s) are out of date: they have to be (re-)tested first. It's not entirely clear to me, but it's possible that they can't be transported (as DGs) if they are out of test date (The methodology is: exceptions on "limited quantities", blanket prohibition, allow if compliance with annexes, and Special Provisions). However, vent them to below the pressure limit and they can be transported outside of the D.G. Regs. Now Diving cylinders can't be refilled if they are out of date on the test cycles (inspection and test, which are different), but it appears that if the tests are less than ten years old they can be transported filled under the DG Regs. Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • USA -
  • OK as far as it goes.
  • Surface transport -
  • OK as far as it goes.
  • Air transport -
  • In my opinion this is only applicable to USA domestic flights, but (and the picture is much much more complicated) it sort of applies to international flights. However, I suspect (I don't have knowledge of USA regs) that it is not a "carry on" i.e. locker item it would be hold luggage only; and, at the discretion of individual airlines (even pilot). Therapeutic oxygen to keep a passenger alive is very different - it going to be carry on (where the bottle is compliant).
  • The same procedure holds good for SA internal flights last time I carried a cylinder. Most scuba cylinders are too big for carry-on - mine certainly were. Therapeutic carry-on is outside the scope of Diving cylinder. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not too surprising because in the UK most ABLJs and many early stab jackets had a small cylinder used to inflate the device, before direct inflators from the first stage became common. These small cylinders, which were filled by connecting them to a normal dive cylinder, provided a very limited amount of redundant gas supply. When flying, nobody in their right mind would carry a full-sized cylinder, but it was quite normal to carry the small cylinders (empty with the valve open) along with your own BCD as hold luggage. The attitude of the airlines and the regulations would have been drawn up with that sort of use in mind, and I don't suppose anybody ever saw any need to change them. --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (missing) International overview -
  • Separate, Road (& Rail ?), Sea and air subsections.
  • (missing) Surface transport -
  • could be done as per USA subsection (above) but by reference to UN Model agreement (possibly) referencing ADR in Europe (since the documents are (were) free to view.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gas cylinder colour-coding and labeling -
    • Worldwide -
  • It would be useful to have an in-line ref. for "..... nitrox cylinders are colour-coded with a green stripe on yellow background". (Note: You have a nice picture, which I'll accept if you can't find a ref).
  • Not my contribution. SA rules require different colours as specified with ref below. I don't know where this comes from. Green band does seem to be relatively common (OR) but I have no ref. Will change to indicate that is is used but not necessarily required. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The green/yellow band seems to be ubiquitous in the USA, but in the UK, I have to mark my nitrox cylinders with the lower band shown in File:Cylinder mod.jpg if I want them to be filled. I think the amendments that you've made better reflect the different practices. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, in my experience, I'd tend to (middly) disagree with: "The normal colour of aluminium diving cylinders is their natural silver". Aluminum is fairly reactive and tends to tarnish to form a "surface oxide" and that is intentionally done in a passivating process: anodising. All the Lufer aluminum cylinders I've bought as "trade sales" from M.D.E. or Sea and Sea, between 1991 and about 2000, have been painted: the early ones light or dark blue, or silver-coloured, and the newer ones yellow (as mentioned),I've seen white as well); I did not specify surface finish, only material (Al.), W.C., pressure and type of outlet valve. In addition, I've rented industrial gases (special analytical grade) and they have come in (apparently) plane "semi-polished" aluminum cylinders, but I think that they were treated (may be lacquered or anodised) rather than "bare" - a bit like the alloy wheels on my car: a "silver paint and lacquer" finish - only bare where / when I scraped the curb. Pyrotec (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also not my claim. I have seen self-colored aluminium cylinders advertised on many websites, but in practice most that I have seen and used have been painted. In SA it is required, they must be yellow. On the other hand, when anodised, unless the anodising is dyed, the colour could reaonably be described as the natural silver. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confirm that in the UK, Luxfer aluminium cylinders were painted metallic blue for many years prior to 1991 as well. I must admit that just about every Al-80 that I've dived with in the USA has been unpainted though. Again, Peter, your latest amendments are accurate, but I have no idea where to get references for them from. What is common knowledge among divers (the "sky is blue" analogy) is often difficult to support with a reliable published source. I'm guessing it would take some 'original research' to trawl through older paper dive magazines (Skin Diver, Sport Diver, etc.) which may have adverts and reviews that could be used. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • European Union & South Africa -
  • OK.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should both introduce the topic article (but not include material which is not in the body of the article) and give a summary the body of the article that is balanced in the same proportion as the body of the article. It should, in general, be no more than three or four paragraphs.
  • The first paragraph looks OK.
  • The second paragraph is very "light" and not really representative. For instance testing and and inspection is mandatory if the cylinder is transported commercial as DGs.
  • Most of what is in the final paragraph does not appear in the body of the article, and so this is a "wasted paragraph" in respect of the limited number available. First aid treatment of Diving disorders does not appear in the body of the article, but decompression stops, different gas compositions (in technical diving), bailout bottles etc, and reserves / endurance are.
  • Emergency supplies in respect of Surface-supplied and diving bells, form an almost insignificant fraction of the body of the article (by number of words), but its almost half of this paragraph. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited the lead to try to cover the sub-topics that are IMHO most pertinent to the casual or lay reader. I've attempted to explain more terms and include a couple of important topics that I would normally teach to newcomers, but I've completely cut the fourth paragraph because I don't believe the article benefits from dwelling on non-diving uses in the lead. @Peter: Please feel free to re-edit, revert or whatever you feel best. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other.
  • Thanks for diligently addressing my comments. Unfortunately I'm running out of time. Admittedly time was lost at the beginning, due to me, but reviews should normally take about one week. I'd like to close this review within 30 hours from now, since I'm not going to be editing after then. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Yes, and many provided by the nominator of this article at WP:GAN
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Yes, and many provided by the nominator of this article at WP:GAN
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  8. This article has been considerably improved during the course of this review. Especially in respect of unreferenced sub-sections and paragraphs (and there were a lot), but also in expanding / internationalising subsections which were solely US-directed. Thanks very much for the efforts and time expended in making these considerable improvements. I'm therefore awarding GA-status.
  9. As a neutral observer (if that is possible), I consider that this article has sufficient breadth and scope to make it through WP:FAC if that path were to be taken (this is not a recommendation either way). HOWEVER, the main problem (as per the start of this review) is inadequate in-line citations (for FA) and possibly grammar, etc, so it would possibly a mistake to rush into WP:FAC; it would be far better to read some reviews to see the process in action and fix those missing citations,
  10. Finally, it has been a pleasure to review this nomination, some are "hard", but not this one.

Congratulations. Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pyrotec It has been a pleasure working with you. Perhaps we will meet again, some day, on a similar project. This exercise has been interesting and entertaining, and occasionally fairly challenging. Overall a worthwhile experience, and the article is more improved that I had thought likely. A fresh perspective is clearly a thing of great value. Thanks also to RexxS and Gene Hobbs for support. I have a few more articles nominated for GA which I would like to get through before moving on to FA. There is no great rush. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European norms

[edit]

Seems that maybe the Brits are tired of harmonizing with "European norms" in dive equipment. Perhaps they feel, like Americans, that Europeans and their norms can go and suck some carbon monoxide. Heh. Whatever floats your boat or sinks your BC, Europe. You go, girls. SBHarris 23:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get your point. Please clarify. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diving_cylinder/GA1&oldid=1079333615"