Talk:Decompression practice

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

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Decompression practice has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 18, 2016. (Reviewed version).

B class rating

This article was split off an excessively large B-class article. There was no obvious reason why it should not retain the B-rating of the parent article as it is a reasonably complete treatment of the relevant section. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 15:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. Comments will come soon.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few major issues in the article. Some of them:

A lot of unsourced information. Needs sources.
Isn't the lead basically an introduction? I don't get the point.
Standardize what type of English you use.
This article seems a bit too long. I suggest to split it.
Use non-breaking spaces for measurements like between 6 and meters in 6 meters.
Fix Harv errors.
Shorten the lead.
Two dead links

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomandjerry211,

I can probably source most material without difficulty, as it is mostly common practice in diving, and I am not keen on over-referencing. However I live in the woods and may just be seeing the trees, so when you thing something needs sourcing, please let me know and i will endeavor to comply.

I will be sourcing a lot over the next few days, it will mostly be easy as I know which references I will use for most statements, just not the chapter or page numbers.

I have referenced almost all the paragraphs, and in many cases individual sentences, some more than once, and have left {{citation needed}} where I have not yet found a suitable reference, to remind me of what is yet to be done. Please feel free to add more where you think more references are required. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now finished referencing everything that I could find that looked like it could reasonably need referencing. If there is anything remaining insufficiently referenced please let me know.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, I can't remember if there was a plan to do something specific here, so have just deleted it.
I am South African, we tend to use mostly British English, but are generally tolerant of American English, so I tend not to notice. If we must standardize, I guess British is what I will go for. I will see what I can find and fix. If my spellchecker does not indicate an error, I will probably not make a change.
This article is already the result of a four-way split of the original. I am not sure how it should be further split. If you have a suggestion, please go ahead and suggest.

You could split the methods and tools into separate lists.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I get some consensus on that from other diving article editors? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomandjerry211 Please respond to my query above, so I know how to proceed. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with that.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will leave a message on the project talk page and hope for response. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no counter-proposal I will split out Decompression equipment on Wednesday. I have already prepared a summary to replace it, but it may need a little tweaking. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please check if I have got the split process right. I think I have done everything, but it is always good if someone checks. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently inserted a load of non-breaking spaces in another article, only to have most of them reverted as against MoS. My current understanding is that they are to be used when the unit is an abbreviation, but not otherwise. I will take another look.

non breaking spaces inserted at all places that I could find that needed them. I may have missed a few. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk):

I will look into Harv errors.

All the Bennett and Elliott (Brubakk and Neuman) Harv refs are about no decompression limits, and may well reference the same page, or the same chapter. I do not have this reference,but the same information is available in several others - it is very basic - so I will add refs of equivalent authority. Do I just delete the B&E refs or should I generalize them? (Harvard is optional, page number is optional) • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to just replace the references, it is simpler. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ditto for shortening the lead and dead links.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead shortened • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No dead links found. Please advise which.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links fixed • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more (minor) issues I noticed.

...by the program. By what program?

Clarified • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some sentences lack a full stop (a period).--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix any that I find. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also two dead links. I will tag as soon as possible.

Fixed two tagged dead links (#34, BSAC safe diving and #51, NORSOK U-100) • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have attended to all the issues listed above. Please check. Is there anything else? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing:

Some paragraphs are quite short, being one or two short sentences.

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes this is appropriate. If there are any particular instances where you think that paragraphs should be merged, please specify and I will give them the attention they need. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Anyways, this article will be passing. Good Job!--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you input. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested split of Decompression practice

RexxS, Gene Hobbs, Cowdy001 and anyone else with subject knowledge. Opinions requested on the suggested split of Decompression practice at the GA discussion page Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, it's often easiest to split out any large lists first because it's easiest to construct a stand-alone list article from them and there's utility in having lists of things in their own article. Sadly, this article doesn't have any that would be big enough. The next candidate is any major section that is sufficiently self-contained to make the job of creating a stand-alone article reasonably uncomplicated. In this case I'd recommend spliting off all the content in Decompression equipment. The introduction to that section would make the foundation of a good lead and the rest of the content would go straight into an fresh article by just raising the heading levels by one. The only real work would be getting a concise summary into this article - I really don't like articles that have sections which are blank other than a {{main}} or {{see also}} template. That's not what summary style is about. You know all about leaving a trail for the attribution, so the job shouldn't be so long as to derail this GAN. Ping me when you've decided and let me know if you need any help, of course. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RexxS, That seems to be roughly the same recommendation as made by Tomandjerry211, the GA reviewer, so I will start planning around this and if no counter-proposal is made in the next few days I will probably go ahead with it. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split done. I would appreciate a check to make sure I haven't missed anything.

The summary for the split out material is pretty long. Should it be trimmed? If so, how? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Decompression practice. 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}}).

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) 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservatism (diving)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Conservatism (diving) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § Conservatism (diving) until a consensus is reached. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements in the article, particularily in the "Risk management" section. Is anyone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]