Talk:Scuba diving/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am inordinately delighted that you spotted the reference :-)) · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Final pass comments

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)

Thanks Mike, I will get to work. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike, I think I have done everything listed, but you might want to check. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Passing. An outstanding article; I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your highly constructive review · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)