Jump to content

Talk:Diving medicine

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

What all should be included in this topic?

[edit]

I started expanding the article, then realised that a summary of diving disorders is not really what it should be about. I would like comment and suggetions.

What should the section headers be?

  • Range and scope of diving medicine
  • Something on the history and researchers in the field.
  • Education and registration of practitioners
  • Training of divers and support staff in relevant first aid etc.
  • Bibliography and external links

A separate new article listing and summarising diving disorders might be useful too. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great start Peter! I would probably start with the organizations that support and certify clinicians in the field like Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society and South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society. This should start to help solidify the accepted scope of practice and the history of the field as well as give you a start finding who the key players were in the beginning. Training and education would also include groups like the National Board of Diving and Hyperbaric Medical Technology for certification and the Divers Alert Network for information. I was kind of taking this on from a more micro view. :-) Can't wait to see what you come up with! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search also found the Diving Diseases Research Centre that should be mentioned as well. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added the draft of European Underwater and Baromedical Society I had been working on. Should we see if we can get this as a "did you know" too? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it will be ready within the 5 days specified. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would worry about trying to be too comprehensive in this article. It is a big topic, but that means that it needs to retain an overview function and make extensive use of summary style (as you're already doing). My advice would be to set up 'selection criteria' for what needs to be included in this article - have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists for an overview of how these criteria are used in list articles and see if that guidance may be helpful in this (non-list) article. Try to remain as focussed as possible on the 'big picture' and be ruthless in cutting out stuff that is not 100% relevant to diving medicine. Do we want to include all conditions that may possibly be relevant to diving, or do we restrict it to conditions that are specific to diving? Just as examples, I'd say all the barotraumas, oxtox, narcosis, hpns, dcs are very specifically diving conditions; carbon monoxide poisoning and emphysema are really not; and drowning is in the grey area. Keeping focus can be difficult, but what relevance has the treatment of ASD to diving? - pictures are nice but they cannot be merely decorative. If you want me to do a copy-edit at some point, let me know. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like good advice; problem is most books that I have read on diving medicine (for divers) seem to be inclusive, which means that divers will probably expect some mention in the article, and add it if missing. That said, I think a middle path of having a section with a bare bulleted list of "relevant to diving" conditions, after the more explanatoty list of specifically diving conditions might work. Drowning is as you suggest, neither a specifically diving condition, nor so peripheral to get away with merely a mention.
Besides the content issue, do you think that the lists of conditions should be formatted as sections as currently done, plain bulleted lists, or should I try the templated term/definition list structure as used in glossaries?
I could use a few suggestions and possible sources for the history section, if you have any ideas. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a dislike of bulleted lists; I always feel that encyclopedia articles should be prose as much as possible (and all of our best articles follow that). You're doing great work right now, but I'd advise that when you've finished a "first pass", you go back through the article asking the question "What has this got to do with diving?" to see what revising could be done. I'll give you a couple of examples: Hypercapnia gives a quick explanation of the condition and then examines how it affects divers - perfect! (although I'd eventually re-write the list as prose); Hypothermia spends far more space on a detailed description (the reader could follow the link for that) and then moves past the crucial point for divers (that water has a huge thermal capacity) very quickly - perhaps redress the balance there? Ping Gene for History - he's the real expert on that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selection criteria - what needs to be in the article:

[edit]
  • Lead section
  • Scope of diving medicine in general terms
  • List? of the specifically diving conditions
  • Brief summary description/definition of these conditions
  • List of other conditions relevant to diving, but not specific to diving - Just a bulleted list of links to WP articles.
  • Fitness to dive (maybe this should be a short summary and link to a stand-alone article)
  • Diver medical examinations and contraindications for diving
  • History of diving medicine
  • Timeline of R&D?
  • List of notable researchers? (with links where articles exist)
  • What they are notable for?
  • List of notable research organisations? (with links where articles exist)
  • What they do?
  • Registration of DM practitioners?
  • Training standards for DM practitioners?
  • Relevance to education of divers and support staff (Supervisors, LSTs etc)?
  • Reading list?

• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment?

In my mind this should be about the specialty itself and not at all about the conditions. A list is a good idea to let people know where to look but it should be more about the training, certification and practice. I'd remove the "Brief summary description/definition of these conditions" given that they are covered well on their own pages and of no real importance to this other than items covered in the curriculum. I'd probably look at other medical specialties or subspecialties like Gynaecology, Gastroenterology, or Pulmonology as peers to this topic. You might find these abstracts useful for some background and/or methods on US and this paper useful for AUS/NZ/US with some letters about changes that can be found with this search.
To get curriculum topics, I'd personally use a link to the NOAA physicians course or the US Navy Dive Medical Officer course (the DMO course topics may not be online).
One other training org I forgot above would be the Wilderness Medical Society.
Thanks, it looks to be off to a great start! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go with it, Peter. You can always add/subtract as you get the feel for how the article is developing. Beware of timelines - avoid anything fancy for accessibility reasons (a plain list by year is actually a good choice for a timeline). Don't be frightened to make redlinks to important people who don't have articles yet - Gene will almost certainly pounce on those and create the article for you! --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article topic fits into WP:MEDMOS#Medical specialties, so will try to use appropriate formatting etc if I can work out what that implies.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From MEDMOS:

Medical specialties

  • Scope including typical diseases/medical conditions; include any important sub-specialties
  • History development of field, including notable founders
  • Investigations investigations, diagnostics, and related techniques used in specialty
  • Treatments
  • Training may be subdivided by country if necessary
  • Ethical and medicolegal issues any ethical issues that are specific to this field

This list of sections deliberately does not include: lists of professional organizations, training programs, publications, and companies working in the field.

Looking GREAT!

[edit]

Your work is looking great here Peter! I also dug up this paper today that may be helpful. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. As you can see there are still a few gaps, so keep sending useful refs! Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-class assessment

[edit]

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.

It has reliable sources, and important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

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 are missing.

3. The article has a defined structure.

Content is 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. The article is reasonably well-written.

The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

Illustrations are present.

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

It is written with a broad audience in mind. The article does not assume expert medical background. Technical terms are explained or avoided where possible.

As far as I can tell, the article complies with B-class requirements. Second opinions are requested. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all points are met (though some sections might need references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie10aaaa Thanks for your quick response, and for pointing out places where citation is needed. Would the US Navy Diving Manual be accepted as a medical reference? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly use USN Diving Manual as a source. If it helps, this is the citation I use (eg. in Oxygen toxicity):
  • 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. Retrieved 29 Jan 2015.
If you use {{sfn}}, you can add the page using |page= and the volume & chapter using |loc=. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diving medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diving medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diving medicine. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 02:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diving medicine. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diving medicine. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diving_medicine&oldid=1201568658"