Jump to content

Talk:Scuba diving

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

Edit request on 15 January 2012

[edit]

I want to improve the infermation 122.163.59.85 (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template is for requesting specific changes, if you want to be able to edit it yourself you need to create an account (It's really easy and only takes 30 seconds) and then become autoconfirmed or confirmed--Jac16888 Talk 12:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading, and other minor things

[edit]

I have added Cousteau's The Silent World to the list of further reading, but ... the list is still very biased towards BSAC publications. I'm not a SCUBA diver, but there must be experts here who could judge which other books should appear on the 'essential reading list'. I left the e-book on the list, but is it (in effect) an advertisement? (I'm not an expert in the field, so can't judge.)

I also took the liberty of removing the call for inline references (dated 2008) as there are now 25, which seems reasonable.

Finally, I think the talk page needs tidying up and then archiving – lots of the discussions are years old, and it takes ages to find the active topics. --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Further reading should be considered an essential reading list. The intention is more to allow editors to recommend books that they feel would expand the coverage given and be of interest to readers. This article covers a very broad topic and potentially many books could be recommended, so I don't worry unduly about 3 BSAC publications being there; I do worry that nobody has seen fit to recommend PADI Encyclopedia or similar notable works, for instance. As for George Campbell's "DIVING WITH DEEP-SIX", I can't see any advertisements or commercial links on the pages; and although I wouldn't necessarily agree with all that he writes there, I think it might be of interest to readers.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that 25 inline citations are anywhere near enough to source all of the potentially challengeable text in the article. It only takes a few moments to see that the History section is completely unreferenced and there are multiple {{citation needed}} templates throughout the text. I'm not going to edit war with you over it, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody re-added a {{refimprove}} at some point.
I'm not sure what tidying up you can do to a talk page. Nobody should be refactoring other people's comments, so I suggest you might want to just cut and paste the older threads into Talk:Scuba diving/Archive 1. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have added one PADI manual to the list, but couldn't find the encyclopedia you mention on Amazon. That's one for someone who has it on their bookshelf. --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the point

[edit]

The article title is Scuba diving, so I am going to try to get it back on topic a bit, and move the off topic material to more appropriate articles. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 26 February 2013

[edit]

Remove and correct below:

Not to be confused with Self-contained breathing apparatus, which describes breathing sets used out of water.

Add corrected text as shown: SCUBA = Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. Which describes breathing sets "underwater" for scuba diving, the Header of this page.

--Fpique (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This header:

Not to be confused with Self-contained breathing apparatus, which describes breathing sets used out of water.

at the top of the page is for visitors who accidentally come to this article in search of the Self-contained breathing apparatus can find their way to the correct article. This header is not used to describe the article it is placed on. Camyoung54 talk 20:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The hatnote would be appropriate for Scuba set or just Scuba, but Scuba diving should not be confused with SCBA, and is not a search string reasonably likely to be used by someone looking for Self contained breathing apparatus • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reader feedback: this page should also tell a...

[edit]

122.177.233.57 posted this comment on 18 June 2013 (view all feedback).

this page should also tell about some famous achievers of scuba diving

Any thoughts?

This article is also a redirect from "Scuba divers", so the reader had reasonable expectations of finding that sort of information. The navbox "Scuba divers" would have given the desired links if the reader had known to use it, but it may be that that is not sufficiently obvious to the average reader. I will make Scuba divers a disambiguation page with links to the most obvious options. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Scuba divers and Scuba diver to redirect to List of underwater divers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reader feedback: A video of scuba diving (wea...

[edit]

101.50.85.89 posted this comment on 29 October 2013 (view all feedback).

A video of scuba diving (wearing of gear, diving etc.) may be added please

This would be useful. If anyone knows of a suitable video, please upload to commons and add link.

• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards of scuba diving - first paragraph needs updating.

[edit]

This paragraph mentions a 1970 and a 2000 study that shows that divers risk factor is 36 - 96 times more the drivers. What about the DAN 2010 Fatality workshop proceedings? Which show a much lower risk factor . . . 163/1,000,000 for diving and 154/1,000,000 for driving.

I don't know about the risks percentages of technical diving but I feel that this opening paragraph grossly over states the risks of recreational scuba and must be changes.

Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by One 4 All (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change it and cite the reference. You could mention that the calculated risk has changed over time, or whatever conclusions were reached in your reference. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Building on the above, the article uses a figure of 1.7x10-3 fatalities / year for driving as a comparator. This is as per the cited article, though is not actually in the source reference stated within that cited article. In any case the range of that metric across the world varies by about 50:1 Traffic collision, and represents a very different frequency of activity in a typical year. So, I don't think it really educates the reader usefully / accurately and have removed it. --Greg (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was very informative, giving many examples of scuba diving, and also giving the basic beginning history of it as well. Packed with tons of information, which is all relevant to the article topic’ Scuba Diving. The article does not contain any bias, or side in the content. There is definitely a neutral standpoint in this article. As I was reading the article there were a few places in which citations where not there and were needed. There was over 59 references cited in this article, some in which I clicked on; most of which were from books. The information given seems to be up to date as scuba diving can be. Even the large amount of pictures that were shown throughout the article seem well within the past decade or newer, which help to fully understand the equipment they describe used for diving. I clicked on quite a few links, which brought me to similar information related to scuba diving. The links are great because if you still don’t fully understand what they mean in the article, by specifically clicking on the links you can get a better understanding of the article and the vocabulary to go along with the topic you are reading and learning about. The table of contents is great, breaks down sections and different areas of diving you would want to learn more about. There was a large list of related topics right before the references, all in which were talked about in the article. It’s great as a scuba diver myself, I understood the producers and equipment discussed in the article, but I think that it was easy enough to understand for anyone to read and contained no bias. Over all this was a great article for getting a better understanding of scuba diving; from the very basics, to all kinds of diving that can be done, to the dangerous hazards of diving as well. ScubaSarah8Scubasarah8 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Scubasarah8 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scubasarah8. Thanks for you comments. It is always pleasant to see that people find an article useful, and that someone has used the linked references (and that they still work). Please feel welcome to add a {{citation needed}} template on any statement which you think needs it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scuba diving. 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) 06:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scuba diving. 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) 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scuba diving. 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) 17:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scuba diving. 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) 09:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scuba diving. 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) 17:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Scuba diving/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert as needed if I make a mess of anything.

  • There are a couple of dead links: see here.
    Removed one as redundant, deleted link for book no longer available on web as newer edition replaced it.
    I just ran the tool again, and it complained about footnotes 11, 28, 35, 37, and 46; at least one of those has an archive link so I'd just remove the live URL.
    Fixed again. As far as I can tell - ref numbers not very stable, so based on running the tool.
  • There are quite a few duplicate links.
    Feel free to delete where you think appropriate. I will remove those I find.
     Done
  • Any reason to have some of the lead cited and some not? There's no requirement to cite anything in the lead unless it's controversial or a direct quote, but for consistency if you're going to cite the lead I'd suggest citing all of it.
    The lead is often useful as a basis for a summary section in a related article, and it much less useful if uncited, so I have developed a habit of citing as default. I will make it more consistent by adding a few citations.
     Done
    That's the first time I've heard that reasoning; interesting point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is uncited material throughout the article; I see at least one "citation needed" tag, but there are also quite a few sentences with no citations.
    Working on it. Nothing controversial, just a matter of completeness. Fixed the tagged one and a few others.
    Still working on it, but have fixed quite a few.
  • Inspired by the simple apparatus of Maurice Fernez: we haven't mentioned Fernez to this point, so I don't know what this refers to. I see Fernez's equipment is described later in this section, but it would be much easier on the reader to describe that before we talk about Le Prieur's modifications to it.
    Clarified a bit. Is it good enough now?
    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lack of a demand regulator and the consequent low endurance: I imagine I'll understand this once I've read the rest of the article, but at this point I don't understand demand regulation well enough to see why low endurance would be the result of not having it. Can we get a very short inline explanation?
    The alternative to demand regulation is free-flow supply, which blows breathing gas past the diver at a constant rate whether he uses it or not. I will clarify.
    I have now explained the function of the demand valve earlier in the section. This is intended to make the comment about endurance clearer. Please check if it works for you.
  • Similarly, can we get a footnote or an inline explanation of mask squeeze? Understanding what mask squeeze is would help the reader see why Le Prieur's changes fixed the issue.
    Explained about equalising the pressure. Is it sufficient?
  • a solution of caustic potash; the system giving a duration of about three hours: not sure a semicolon is better than a comma there. And perhaps "diving duration", to make it quite clear what we're talking about?
    I am not good with semicolons, and I think this one was probably put there by someone else anyway. I will change it, and you are welcome to make punctuation corrections without referring to me first. My eyes are not too good at distinguishing punctuation marks at normal resolution and I often just don't notice details like this.
     Done
  • The Severn Tunnel story is a great touch. According to that article the lead diver was Alexander Lambert; might be nice to give his name here, if it can be sourced.
    I am pretty sure it will be in Davis 1955, which I do not have. I will see what I can dig up.
    Found a reference and added it.  Done
  • included an emergency buoyancy bag on the front of to help keep: something amiss here.
    I think I already fixed this, please recheck.
    Still an issue; it's easy to miss this sort of thing when reading through one's own prose. It says "on the front of to" which doesn't make sense; I think it should be something like "on its front to". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, got it now. Fixed as you suggested.  Done
  • The DSEA was adopted by the Royal Navy after further development by Davis in 1927: adopted in 1927 or developed further in 1927? If the latter, I'd reverse the order so we have it chronologically; if it's the former it needs to be rephrased for clarity.
    I don't have access to the sources, but the Wikipedia article on the DSEA states that it was adopted by the RN in 1929. Have rephrased accordingly.  Done
  • The high percentage of oxygen used by these early rebreather systems limited the depth at which they could be used. Why does that follow?
    Oxygen toxicity at high partial pressures. I have explained in the paragraph - does it clarify sufficiently?
  • when Siebe Gorman was directed by Robert Henry Davis: why is this worth mentioning?
    Not mine, I would be quite happy to remove it, as he is mentioned as the head of SG earlier. I think this is redundant unless there was some other point that was intended. I have removed it and will see if anyone objects.  Done
  • When a demonstration resulted in a diver passing out: I think this means a demonstration of the Porpoise, but I'd make it clearer -- I initially thought it might be a reference to the CG system and hence a comparison to the Porpoise.
    It was the rebreather. Clarified.  Done
  • which separates the first and second stages by a low-pressure hose as with the comment about the demand regulator, the reader doesn't yet understand what stages are, so a brief parenthetical explanation would be helpful.
    Rewritten to explain. Does it work for you?
  • The last three subsections of the history section seem to have very little to do with history; they mostly define terms.
    Good point. I think I got sidetracked when writing them. Expanded the first a bit to give a bit more history. More to come for others.
    Rewritten to be more of a history. Please check.
    Much improved; I will read them in more detail when I go through the article again but that addresses my original concern. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the etymology section? The etymology is already discussed in the history section.
    I don't know. It is not entirely covered in history. I think there are other editors who may want to keep it. I don't remember the details. RexxS may be of some help here.
    No objections so far so have merged into history and lost an uncited detail.
  • Earwig found a high overlap in text from this, which you cite as DeNoble 2005; that really needs to be paraphrased quite a bit more.
     Done. It picked up that statistical factors were listed in the same order. Since the factors are important, but the order is not, I rearranged them and used a few synonyms and that eliminated the apparent problem.
  • What's the value of the table of types of diving activity? Wouldn't this be better as prose? It overlaps with the "applications" section above; I think it should be integrated with it. I'm going to skip commenting on the prose in that section for now in case you decide to merge the table and prose (in either direction).
    I will think about this. Back later.
    I think you are right. I am going to rewrite the contents of the table in normal prose. It may take a day or three.
    When I was doing it I realised that I had already started converting to prose some time ago, which is why the information was mostly duplicated, but got distracted and never finished the job. It is now done, though occasional tweaks may still be needed.  Done
  • I can see that "Depth range" is a reasonable topic to go in the applications section, but shouldn't it be covered first, since it limits the applications?
    Good point. This sort of insight is why these reviews are so valuable.
    I changed the order as suggested.  Done
  • Why is "Applications" before "Equipment"? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the equipment section first? That would allow you to make the capabilities and limitations clear, which in turn would feed naturally into a discussion of the applications.
    I will think about this. Back later.
    I have given it some thought, and would like your opinion on whether "Applications" should go before or after "Procedures".
    Without reading the section in detail, it seems as though a logical sequence would be "Equipment", "Procedures", "Depth range", "Applications", though I could imagine the middle two being being swapped. I will do a another read through and comment within the next couple of days and will comment again if I change my mind, but putting "Equipment" first seems natural because procedures and applications will both refer to equipment; and putting "Applications" last seems right because functionally speaking that's the point: we have this equipment and these procedures in order to be able to use them in these applications. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the sort of thing I was thinking about.
    I have changed the order as suggested.  Done
  • The defining equipment used by a scuba diver is the eponymous scuba, the self-contained underwater breathing apparatus which allows the diver to breathe while diving, and is transported by the diver: I know this is just an introductory sentence, but I think it could be cut. Readers will know this is what we're talking about by this point in the article; it doesn't give the reader any new information.
    I will think about this.
    I will leave this until the structure has settled
  • In the underwater diving article, you restricted the discussion of hazards to a single paragraph, with a link to diving hazards and precautions. (As it happens that article is a list, which I'm not sure is the best format for it, but that's beside the point.) Wouldn't it make sense to do the same here, at least to some extent? There's no reason to repeat a detailed discussion of hazards in multiple diving articles, is there? Perhaps specific hazards that apply only to scuba could be covered in detail here, but hazards in the environment and in the diver are not specifically related to scuba diving.
    You have a good point here. I will have to consider the implications of possibly rewriting the hazards article.
    I am going with this suggestion and have removed the bulk of the content. I plan to write a new article on diving hazards to supplement the list article, and will probably use the old version of the section as a foundation for it. I still need to clean up the scuba specific hazards subsection.
    Mostly cleaned up.

Since I've suggested a couple of things that could lead to reorganizing the article to some extent, I'm going to pause the review here and wait for your comments before continuing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have given me much food for thought. I am now thinking about how to tie all the diving mode articles together with consistent and logical structure. That will be Freediving, Scuba diving, Surface-supplied diving, Saturation diving, Atmospheric pressure diving and Unmanned diving. No rest for the wiki-editor.

Just catching up with some strikes; the unstruck ones are ones I think you're still working on, so let me know if that's not that case. When you're ready let me know and I'll do another read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done another pass through above, and I think the structural issues are now settled; I'll read through the article again and make more comments some time in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike, the article is already greatly improved. I find that having someone look from a fresh perspective often inspires important changes. I am now wondering if I should be trying to cut down the size somehow. When you read through again, please take the possibility of trimming down excess detail into consideration. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I was about to start another read through and this time found myself stopping at the first sentence of the history section: The history of scuba diving is closely linked with the history of scuba equipment. What's the boundary between the two articles? I can see it's hard to talk about the history of diving without covering the equipment history, but how are the article intended to be different? Should the two in fact be the same article, History of scuba diving, with {{main}} links from both scuba set and scuba diving, and summary sections left in those places with a different focus in each? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, That looks like a good idea. I will look more closely to be sure, but I think there is enough between them to make a reasonably solid article for History of scuba diving, though I will also have to see how it fits in with History of underwater diving too. This may take a bit of thought. If it works out it should shorten both Scuba diving and Scuba set significantly, which is good. This is the sort of excess detail I was hoping to split off. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just an aside, but I remember talking a couple of years ago to a professor of intellectual property law who regularly gives his students assignments to improve Wikipedia articles. The idea of curation of a group of articles came up; many Wikipedians work on one article at a time, and even if they work on related articles over time it's hard to step back and come up with a plan for consistent integration of a group of articles. What you're engaged in is curation -- unfortunately, unlike that professor, you don't have a team of students whom you can direct to one article after another to do the clean-up for you. As a project, though, I think it's hugely beneficial to Wikipedia, because it's the sort of thing that is least likely to get done in passing by the "anyone can edit" culture -- it needs long-term dedication. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is as you say. Curation is a logical function of WikiProjects. Some do it quite well. I have been at it for years. First the filling in of the major gaps in the walls, now the plastering over the cracks. It is hugely helpful when someone comes along and points out where the gas tap has been painted over. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a reference to At the Drop of Another Hat? It all makes work for the editor to do.... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am inordinately delighted that you spotted the reference :-)) · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have split off most of the detailed history and will merge with history split from Scuba set · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final pass comments

[edit]

Starting another set of comments.

  • The end of the first paragraph of the revised history section is uncited.
     Done
  • The last paragraph of "Gas mixtures" is uncited.
     Done
  • The "Buoyancy control and trim" section repeats the information about fine control using average lung volume in consecutive paragraphs.
    Removed one instance.  Done
  • Cylindrically curved faceplates such as those used for firefighting full-face masks: needs some tweaking; not a grammatical structure.
    Tweaked, and then decided it is not needed at this level of detail, so deleted.  Done
  • The last two subsections of "Equipment" are uncited.
     Done and expanded a bit.
  • The first mention of a "buddy" comes before the term is defined; a parenthetical definition would be useful.
    Added link and footnote.  Done
  • There are a couple of uncited sentences in "Standard diving procedures".
     Done
  • I see some evidence for American spelling ("maneuver") and some that is definitely not American ("behaviour"). Which variety of English is the article intended to be in?
    Article is tagged for British English. I tend to write in South African English, which is more like British for spelling, but don't always notice American spelling. I will fix what I notice.
    Corrected what I could find. Let me know if you find any more.
  • The second and third paragraphs of "Risk" somewhat overlap and could probably be merged.
     Done
  • The first paragraph of the "Recreational" subsection of the "Training" section is uncited.
     Done

That's everything I can see. The article is now in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, I will get to work. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I think I have done everything listed, but you might want to check. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, everything is fixed now except the very first point above -- the two sentences starting "After World War II" are still uncited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eish! Mike, I added that ref yesterday, page number and all, and then forgot to save. Fortunately it was still on my rough notes.  Done · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. An outstanding article; I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your highly constructive review · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gender issues

[edit]

I'd like to point out that there is only one female pictured on this page (and in a bikini only learning to dive at that). There is no mention of the gender preconceptions, the historical male dominance in the field, or the now diminishing gender gap in the sport. (unsigned comment by IP 76.11.147.214 moved to bottom of page)

  1. What gender preconceptions?
  2. What "Historical male dominance in the field"?
    If you can privide some reliable sources supporting these assertions I wold be happy to consider adding a section, but I have been diving for over thirty years and in my personal experience there were a sigmificant number of women in the field at all levels during all this time. This article is about diving, not so much about divers. Where I come from, and at the places I have dived and trained divers, women were always welcome and generally judged on their merits as divers. No systemic bias was apparent. Some were good and some were not, much like the men. They may have generally been the minority in numbers, but not by a large proportion, and in some fields were often the majority group.
  3. If there is a diminishing gender gap, please indicate the evidence by citing your references, preferably those which provide statistics.
  4. We illustrate our articles with freely licensed images that are availble to us. The choice is sometimes surprisingly small. Do you have any suitable photos photos we can use to improve this? Upload them to Wikimedia Commons and leave a link here. The one of a female demonstrating a skill in training is the most suitable we had for that purpose (I looked, quite carefully, at what was available). It was not chosen for any other reason. The same can be said for all the other images. Supply us with some photos that better illustrate the sections in the article and we will use them. It does not matter to us whether the subjects are male ot female, just that they are appropriate to illustrate the point.
  5. This is Wikipedia, if you have content that you think should be included, and can support it with suitable references, you are free to add it yourself. If the material is appropriate it will be kept, though it will probably be edited to fit in better, if inappropriate it will be fixed, deleted or moved to where it is more appropriate. If you prefer you can suggest content on this talk page (with references) and if it is appropriate to the article we will add it.
  6. When you add a comment to a talk page, please add it in the correct place and do not overwrite somone else's conrtibution. A new conversation should be at the bottom and have a topic header. When done, please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~, which will convert into your signature (in your case, your IP address) when you save.
  7. If anything is not clear, please feel free to ask for clarification. Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article written in British English?

[edit]

I don't understand why the article on scuba diving is written in British English. There is no such thing as a famous scuba diver and Britain is not famous for recreational diving destinations. The world's most famous dive destinations are located in the Caribbean, not cold water climates such as England. Also, Britain has a smaller number of recreational divers in comparison with other countries such as the United States. I am absolutely certain that this article is perused by a relatively small number of Brits in comparison with people from other countries.Anthony22 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no strong national ties to any nationality, so per MOS:RETAIN it should stay in the variety of English first established in the article. I believe the primary author is South African, in fact, not English. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scuba_diving&oldid=1252166921"