Talk:Diver rescue

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Not a how-to

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia has a policy outlining what it is not. One of the things it is not is a "How-to" guide. The relevant section in WP:NOTHOWTO states:

Wikipedia articles should not read like:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.^[1] If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki or our sister project, Wikibooks.

In my humble opinion this article is veering far to much toward being a step-by-step instruction manual for how to perform a diver rescue. It may be acceptable to describe management of medical conditions or of emergencies where there are clearly established and agreed procedures for such management, but that is not the case with rescuing a diver who suffers an oxygen toxicity attack. It is worth contrasting the received wisdom of the USN Dive Manual with what Simon Mitchell, the chair of the Diving Committee of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, had to say about the issue in this forum post in 2008: http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebreather-accidents-incidents/16705-standardizing-ccr-rescue-skills-3.html#post163661 – and I have no doubt that Dr Mitchell really knows what he's talking about. There are simply too many myths associated with this issue for us to be making definitive statements of the kind currently in the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

RexxS, I agree, way too much here. Also, the UHMS diving committee (or a portion of us anyway) just submitted an article for publication on diver rescue. It was a review at the request of the WRSTC. I'll let you know when it goes to print. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gene, Any news on the article? Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw what I think was our final version in mid-January. I'll check to see if it is in the queue and get back to you. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

In round two of peer review... funny for a committee report but it is a journal pub too. Hope it will not be too much longer. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here you go... This one may require some re-writing to the article but the debates here can not be as bad as what we debated in the Committee or in Peer Review. I am proud of what we did here:

Mitchell, Simon J; Bennett, Michael H; Bird, Nick; Doolette, David J; Hobbs, Gene W; Kay, Edward; Moon, Richard E; Neuman, Tom S; Vann, Richard D; Walker, Richard; Wyatt, HA (2012). "Recommendations for rescue of a submerged unresponsive compressed-gas diver". Undersea & Hyperbaric Medicine : Journal of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, Inc. 39 (6): 1099–108. PMID 23342767. Retrieved 2013-03-03.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Can't wait for your feedback guys! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No surprises. It all seems pretty logical and uncontroversial. A useful guidance document. The debates were probably more interesting, but what items were controversial?

I have made some changes based on the paper, perhaps you would take a look and see if you agree, and maybe suggest additional material or rearrangement if necessary. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The idea of giving breaths in the water was a fun discussion (even the idea of one or two on surfacing if it was a long kick). The other one that took the most time was the open vs closed airway if the reg is out. The video was awesome. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

^ The how-to restriction does not apply to the project namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. Also, in the main namespace, describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not.

B-Class review

B	The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as `{{cite web}}` is optional. More citations needed, though nothing controversial. N 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 may be missing. Nothing obviously missing. Y The article has a defined structure. Content should 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. Complies. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Complies. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. could use more photos, but not critical. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK to me. Y

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diver rescue. 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) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diver rescue. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104080007/http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/ to http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=1038&sectionTitle=Annual+Diving+Incident+Report

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) 14:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] The how-to restriction does not apply to the project namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. Also, in the main namespace, describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use something is not.

[1]