Talk:Rebreather diving

Intentions?

• To User:Pbsouthwood: Currently much matter about the design of rebreathers is in page Rebreather and also in page Rebreather diving, causing WP:content forking. What are your intentions here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Design specific to diving rebreathers could go on either page. I am uncertain at this stage, though I lean slightly towards this page, but am open to persuasion. Do you have an opinion? Both pages are pretty large already, so it might even be appropriate to split again to a page Diving rebreather. I don't think this is an urgent split. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have moved back to page Rebreather all the matter about the design of rebreathers, rather than using them. Else we end up with a lot of WP:content forking. To page Rebreather I have added a section ===Industrial rebreathers===. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Looks good. That should work. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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. Some unreferenced material, needs further checking. 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. Fairly good coverage, no obvious gaps. 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. Structure looks OK. Lead needs some work to cover more of the article. Lead expanded.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. Looks OK. 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. Sufficiently illustrated. 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

Not yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Still needs more refs for some sections, otherwise still good. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Split out and merge Diving rebreather from this article and Rebreather?

Both Rebreather and Rebreather diving are very long articles. Quite a lot of the content in both articles is on the topic of diving rebreathers. I propose splitting out the content on diving rebreathers from Rebreather to Diving rebreather, and possibly splitting and merging some content from Rebreather diving to Diving rebreather. Courtesy pinging @Anthony Appleyard, Mark.murphy, and RexxS:

Discuss at Talk:Rebreather#Split and merge Diving rebreather

There were no objections, the split has been done and merging of selected content is ongoing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)