Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Underwater diving/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 [1].

---

Underwater diving

Nominator(s): • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the lead article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving, and a level 4 vital article in Everyday life. The article is about the human practice of going underwater to interact with the underwater environment for professional or recreational reasons. It is in summary style throughout as it is intended as the top level introduction to the large number of Wikipedia articles on subsidiary topics relating to underwater diving. ... • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• General notes on first glance (sorry if this is formatted wrong, I'm not an FA regular):

  I think I can manage, I too am not very familiar with the procedures. Thanks for your attention. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

1. There are various WP:SANDWICHING issues that just get worse the wider the resolution is.

   If I understand you correctly, you mean that when the gap between the images gets too wide it causes problems? I will try to recreate this and see what it looks like. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   I have done what I think may solve the problem. Please confirm. If it does not, please feel free to demonstrate, as I am not sure that I can replicate the problem adequately. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   Sandwiching issues happen when there is an image on the left and an image on the right and text "sandwiched" between them. The easiest solution is to use only right aligned images, but left can also be used, if they are adequately spaced. The wider the screen resolution the more difficult it is to avoid sandwiching. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   I understand. The changes I have made eliminate reduce sandwiching issues on my screen, so I will assume it is fixed until notified otherwise. however, putting the images on only one side pushes some of them out of the relevant section, and at a screen width where sandwiching starts, the text width is already quite wide. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   Changing all images to right aligned default width seems to give an acceptable appearance over the widest range of page widths, for my browser. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   I added upright scaling to all the vertically oriented images, combined a few images using Template:multiple image, and removed exactly one image. This reduced a lot of the stacking issues, but there's still a pretty bad stack right around the History section. I'm not sure if there's an easy solution there other than adding more text or removing some images. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   Looks OK to me, I will experiment a bit with more multiple images and see where it goes. Worth a try at least. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

2. The images in the lead look fine on PC, but on mobile browser they result in having to scroll through a full screen's worth of image before you get to any text, and on mobile app they do the same, but they appear after the first paragraph of the lead, meaning you can't really see the text of the first paragraph and the second in the same screen. The flags should probably be moved, removed, or incorporated into something like Template:Multiple image.

   I think I get your point, but have no mobile browser to check on. I will look into possible solutions, including those you suggest. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   I moved the flags to another section where they are probably more relevant anyway. Does this solve the problem? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, it seems to have. TimothyJosephWood 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

3. The lead overall could probably be more concise. Some animals are physiologically and anatomically better adapted to the environmental conditions of diving doesn't really seem like it has thorough treatment in the body, and so it's not clear why it needs to be in the lead. The whole thing could probably be reduced to about two thirds its size with careful reduction.

   Changed so that other animals are not mentioned in that statement. Other reductions are not obvious to me, but I will see if there is anything I can do. I did reduce the lead considerably during the GA review, but a few things have changed since then and it may be possible to squeeze it down a bit more without too much loss. If you have any specific suggestions, I would like to see them. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   I've done a good deal of tightening to the lead. One sentence still bothers me: In ambient pressure diving, the diver is directly exposed to the pressure of the surrounding water, and uses breathing apparatus for scuba diving or surface supplied diving, or when freediving, will breath-hold. The "when freediving, will breath-hold", although I can probably imagine how it would be technically grammatically workable, if so, is still really awkward sentence construction. But I'm not totally sure how to best reword it so that it would be understood by... a fairly average but inquisitive 15 year-old. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   I noticed, most is good, but I had to change one where the meaning was distorted. I will look at options for the awkward construction as I don't like it either. It may take more words. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

   Really awkward construction changed by rewriting much of the paragraph. I think it is better now. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

4. There is probably an over-reliance on scare quotes where they're not clearly necessary, some MOS:WORDSASWORDS instances where they should probably be italicized instead of quoted. Also quotes and wikilinks should not be used in concert.

   Works for me. TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

   Good point, I will sort this out. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   Removed several that seemed unnecessary. If I have missed any that you think should go, please feel free to delete them. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Personal preference, but if upright is used on vertically oriented images, it should probably be used consistently.

   I will take a look, but am not sure that I get your point. Maybe it will become clear after I look into it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   Still mot sure. Do you want all the images to be of the same width, or all the portrait format images to be the same width, or something else? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   I have made all the images default width and right aligned as this seems to provide reasonable layout over most page widths between about 50 chars to 200 chars. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   Taken care of this one. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

6. The sourcing has a mixed format, and Sources section should be incorporated into inline citations.

   I don't think I understand what you are suggesting here. If I do, then I don't understand why. If this is about some having parentheses round the date and others not, I am on it. I had not noticed it before. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   I Think I have all the dates parenthesised, and a couple of references consolidated. Done? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   I have changed the Sources level 2 header to level 3, so it is now a subsection of References. This might have been one of the things you wanted, and is how I normally do it anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but per WP:FACR #2c, my understanding is that you can use either a footnote citation style or a bibliography citation style, but you can't use both. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   WP:FACR #2c states:either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). I am not using Harvard referencing, and assumed that what is used here is all considered footnotes. I see no mention of bibliographies/sources or whater one chooses to call them, so assumed that the current arrangement complies. I will make some further checks, but have seen this arrangement pass several GA reviews. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

   I have found existing FAs with similar referencing by randomly inspecting FAs - it is a minority format, possibly between one in five and one in ten use it:

   • McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk
   • Roy of the Rovers
   • A Handful of Dust
   • Lisa del Giocondo
   • Red-headed myzomela
   • Bill Newton
   • Titanium
   • Frank Pick
   • Rampart Dam
   • Royal Gold Cup

   I choose to use this system because it seems an efficient compromise at providing the necessary information while using the least space on the page. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

7. The Notes section needs sources to indicate exactly where that information is coming from. TimothyJosephWood 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   Also a good point, I will look up the source and add it, these are fairly standard definitions, so should not be too difficult. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   Found a source, now all I have to do is work out how to nest references with list definitions. That will have to wait for another day. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   As far as I can make out from the help pages, it cant be done, so will leave the definitions inline for now where they at least work as required. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   I see you found exactly the template I was going to suggest. Looks good. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Timothyjosephwood, I think I have done all of what you suggested, Please check in case I have misunderstood. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Timothyjosephwood, I have changed one of your multiple image templates, as one of the three was out of place in that section, and combined it with the other image from the previous section, with similar overall effect. You may wish to adjust overall widths to suit what you had in mind - I left them at 450px. I am not familiar with the workings of multiple images, and have hesitated to use them because of possible accessibility issues such as overriding the users image width choice, and I have no idea how they display on mobile. However I think we have a situation where we are choosing a lesser evil, and image formatting can always be changed when the software is improved. With this in mind, there are other possible combinations for multiple images. How far do you think it is advisable to go? I will combine a couple more to see how it looks. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the template doesn't work with an upright scaling factor at all, so this is one of those "preferred whenever possible" situations. On mobile it basically ignores the template and treats it like two adjacent images, unless you use perrow as in the lead image for Humour, where it treats them either the same as PC, or as horizontally cropped swatches depending on device. Probably right that for mobile users it's better to use just two combined images at a time. TimothyJosephWood 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, Are there any outstanding issues? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. TimothyJosephWood 00:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• All of the images now have sensible (if sometimes lengthy) alternate text.
• Images (other than the multiple images) do not use forced sizing, thus allowing registered users' preferences to work.
• No use is made of text below 85% of the page's base font size.
• The only use of colour is in the navigation templates, which meet WCAG AA standard, but fail WCAG AAA when a link (colour #002BB8) is displayed against the light blue background (#CCCCFF).
• No data tables are used which would require considerations for accessibility.
• The article is navigable by use of the keyboard without a mouse, and the collapsible content is also accessible from a keyboard (but needs JavaScript enabled, of course).

I do not judge that the minor deficiencies noted should be a barrier to promotion as a Featured Article. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, If you have any recommendations for improving the minor deficiencies, go ahead. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There's not much that I can do to improve the colour contrast as the templates all use the default styling from {{Navbox}} and it was a design decision to harmonise colours; also I don't really have the stamina to start micro-managing every template we use. It's not a big deal as it's almost AAA compliant (and the colours appear to differ anyway between Vector skin and Monobook), so it's unlikely to be a problem for the vast majority of readers. I really ought to create an alternative to {{multiple image}} that allows |upright= to solve the other problem, but I need to find some time to do that. I promise I'll let you know when I have. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

  I have made some changes, but I am not confident that they are all done, or all correct. The more I look at them the less sure I am. Please identify which ones you think are wrong.

  Thanks for the fixes. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:Diving_stage.jpg: source link is dead

  So I see. I did not take the photo or upload it. I just used it as found on Commons, assuming that the Commons community will have checked that the image is acceptable for use on Wikimedia projects. The photo has been on Commons since 2008 and there are no warning notices and the provenance is entirely plausible. Is there something I am expected to do about this, or are you just mentioning it?

  Suggest checking for an archival copy of the source and adding if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  I searched but could not find an archived copy. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:US_Navy_explosive_ordnance_disposal_(EOD)_divers.jpg: is there a source for this image?

  Not that I am aware of. It too was linked from Commons on the assumption that as has been there since 2005 without challenge, and the provenance is entirely plausible. I have no reason to suspect that it is not exactly as claimed.

  Okay. You can add this one if none other is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:ROV_working_on_a_subsea_structure.jpg: image description suggests that the uploader was not the author

  So I see. It is possible that User:Mierlo was the author, but the copyright was held by Oceaneering. I do not know how to investigate this possibility. Commons appears not to have an issue with it.

  Ideally we would have an OTRS ticket to confirm licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  I think this may not be reasonably practicable, as the original uploader has been vanished for some years. Commons keeps files of this era of upload through a grandfathering policy as it was uploaded before OTRS was implemented. See discussion at commons. I have no compelling reason to assume bad faith, but admit I may be biased because I like the image and find it useful. It is easily the best I could find on Commons for this purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:Alexander_the_Great_diving_NOAA.jpg: even though NOAA is the immediate source, they wouldn't hold copyright under US law - should use a different tag

  As a 16th century painting I would assume that any copyright would have expired long ago. It has a {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} template as well as the {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} template. What other PD template should it have? Is there any doubt that it is PD?

  No, but it should still be appropriately tagged. The NOAA tag is currently representing its status in the US; this should be replaced with one of the pre-1923 publication tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:John_Scott_Haldane_1910.jpg (1) needs a US PD tag (2) needs an explanation of what has been done to try to ascertain authorship (3) needs a publication date

  I cannot prove anything that I have done by way of trying to ascertain authorship, and as I cannot find out when it was published beyond the moderately obvious "1910 or later". I will give up on this and use the only alternative available, which is dated 1902, by an author who died in 1914.

  The new image (File:John_Scott_Haldane_1902.jpg) will need a US PD tag of some sort. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:Trevor_Jackson_returns_from_SS_Kyogle.jpg is tagged as lacking source details, and is that attribution correct given the author?

  I corrected the apparent attribution error. There is an OTRS ticket referenced, As far is I know that means that permission has been verified. I have no source information, and no idea where to get it from. Is it a problem?

  I've dismissed the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:Decompression_chamber.jpg: source link is dead

  So it is. Provenance seems uncontroversial. There are thousands of US Navy photos on Commons.

  Suggest adding archived link if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  I do not know how to go about finding an archived link. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  And now it seems I do. At least I found one for this and have added it. Seek, and sometimes ye shall find. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:Pavillon_rouge_avec_une_diagonale_blanche.svg is too simple to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  Still needs addressing - should use a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  Should I just arbitrarily change the tag to CC0 on Commons? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Check out File:Alpha_flag.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Ah! Precedent. Thanks, and done. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. If there are any improvements you would like to do yourself, please go ahead. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have done what I can to address some of these issues, and it is not clear whether I am expected to do anything about the others, or whether you are just mentioning them here to show due diligence in your checks. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I think these have been done as far as possible. Is there anything else> • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, looks fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and advice. I have learned some new things. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

– Welcome to FAC, Peter. It's really, really hard to take a big topic like this and make it your first attempt at FAC, but I think you've done a good job with this article. I cleaned up a few minor things while reading it and came up with the following points:

• The most important issue is that there is some uncited content (either whole paragraphs or the ends of paragraphs) in Breathhold limitations (admittedly basic stuff), Diving environment, Medical aspects of diving, and Risks and safety. The coordinators will be reluctant to promote this as long as that content remains uncited, and even if it is promoted some random editor will be sure to put cite tags there on main page day; I've seen it happen quite a few times before.

  Busy with this one. One down, 3 or 4 to go. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Just one more, that is proving surprisingly recalcitrant, considering its importance as a general principle of diving safety. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Remove unreferenced statement. It is sufficiently logical that readers should come to that conclusion from the rest of the context. I may replace it if I find a suitable reference, but it is not critical. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Breathhold limitations: The first paragraph consists solely of links to three articles. Was this meant to be part of the hatnote here?

  Even worse - they were notes to link to those articles I made as an aide-memoire when I started the section, and then forgot. Now moved to where they should have been.

• Surface supplied diving: Is Snuba supposed to be capitalized? I thought I should ask here, as I wasn't comfortable changing it without knowledge of the subject.

  It is a trade name which is probably becoming genericised. As far as I know it is still normally capitalised, unlike scuba, which has been around as a generic term for far longer.

• History: I can't say that I'm in love with the bold text here. We don't need to have this in bold just because the full article on the subject begins that way.

  Quite agree, changed.

• I see a mention of Second World War in the lead and one of World War II in History. You should probably pick one style and stick with it consistently, though I have no strong preference either way.

  Agreed, and changed.

• Diver training: This section has a couple of small paragraphs, including a one-sentence "Further training is required..." paragraph. Would it be possible to merge a couple of these so they don't appear so stubby?

  Done. I used the best fit I could think of.

• This is just a suggestion, but you might want to check the article for wikilinks that are duplicated. I'm seeing a lot of them, particularly in the History section, and typically only one link is needed per subject in the body. It is sometimes considered acceptable to have multiple links for a longer article like this, but some of the overlinking here is bordering on overkill.

  I recently eliminated several redundant links. Those which remain are unique to a major section. I left them as they may be useful to the reader, who otherwise might not easily find the link if there were only one in the whole article. My own experience is that if it is not easy to find a link within about a page up or down from the term in question, it is easier and quicker to just do a Wikipedia search, and that reduces the value of the links. Your experience may differ, and I know that WP:OVERLINK does not agree. I am open to logical persuasion on this point. It is possible that some of the links may be considered trivial or unnecessary and if you prefer to remove some of the duplicates, I will not object, but I find it difficult to decide which ones should go.

• I'm not doing a full source review here, but I noticed that references 4 and 13 have different styles in their access dates than those in the rest of the cites. I'd change these two to the DMY format; that's what is used elsewhere, and the source checkers will want to see consistency in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  Somehow I keep missing these. Thanks for spotting. Fixed. I rechecked all the access dates again, and that was the only one I found.

  You found number 4, but missed number 13, which still has the different formatting. It's from Aviat Space Environ Med, in case that helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  OK, Got it. Fixed. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008, I think this is all done now, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support – All of my concerns have been adequately resolved. This is a fine effort at developing a big topic Wikipedia article, and I'm satisfied with its quality. Let's hope it attracts some attention from other reviewers. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support. I also hope for a few more reviews, as it would appear that an insufficient number of reviews is one of the major reasons for a nomination not making it to FA. (largest single factor in the last 11 months - 19 out of 54 = 35%) Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Peter asked for my advice before putting this article forward at FAC and I did an unofficial peer review. As a result, a number of alterations were made to the article. It is a big subject and I think it is now well-covered, and I am supporting this candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was the GA reviewer and support promoting the article to FA. I have completed reviewing syntax, content and all of the suggested changes by other reviewers. The article does an excellent job of covering a wide range of underwater diving activities, and all are accurately sourced and verifiable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. As I believe this would be the nominator's first FA, we also need a spot-check of sources for accurate use and close-paraphrasing. Finally, Timothyjosephwood I notice that you said you are not a FA regular. If you feel that this article meets the FA criteria, feel free to indicate "support" on this page. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really. I can certainly support in the sense that I feel like they've addressed the issues I've raised. I'm currently doing my own first FA nom, so I don't pretend that I understand the "normal" FA standards to the point where I can authoritatively say that I think it meets them. At the very least, I certainly have no outstanding objections. TimothyJosephWood 21:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarastrol, my apologies for not making my support comment more clear but I did check the sources, the article is accurately sourced and the information is verifiable, and I actually did quite a bit more than spot-checking. With regards to close paraphrasing, copy vio detector resulted in a less than 10.7% likelihood, and on close examination, there was nothing that could be considered a copyvio. For an article this length, such a result is remarkably low. I think that covers it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to update: The spot-checks have been done, but we still require the full source review. Also, as this is quite a technical article, I might ask for a few more eyes on it, but we are almost there now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, To clarify: Are you looking for comment from users who have sufficient background in underwater diving to judge the general quality of information, completeness of coverage, relevance, notability, neutrality, etc, relating to the topic, or something else. I cannot help with the full source review (obviously), but I could ping a few users that I know to be knowledgeable or expert on underwater diving matters, besides those who have already commented here. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not especially, just wanting to check over the prose: technical articles can bog down a little, so I'd like someone to just give it a last check. Having said that, more expert review can never hurt these articles! Sarastro1 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, Cowdy001, Legis, Ex nihil are active, knowledgeable, and have made fairly recent edits to WPSCUBA articles. Gene Hobbs is sporadically active, but has expert background in the physiology of diving and extensive experience, and may respond. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 - technical articles can bog down a little. If by this you mean you would like someone without any background in diving to comment on the intelligibility and ease of reading, I would be most interested to find out how accessible it is to the ordinary person in the street, as that is the primary target reader for this level of summary. I have tried to make it as easy as reasonably practicable, but it is difficult to get good feedback. I don't want to dumb it down unnecessarily, but my main reason for bringing it here was to make sure it is at the right level. Everything else is the cherry on top. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help if I can, although FA and GA article nominations and reviews are not my strong suite. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Legis, Thanks for stepping up to the plate. Sarastro1 may wish to clarify further, but you should be able to get the idea of what is needed from the thread above. For my part, I would appreciate any feedback on general intelligibility, ease of reading, completeness of coverage, and anything at all that you think might improve the article. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, your comment: Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC.. It is not clear if you are recommending that I request a source review, or if it is a thing that someone else should do. I do not have previous experience at FAC to fall back on for interpretation. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the request, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

I like the article very much but I don't think it is quite ready. Some questions: is "breathhold" a word? If it is, it seems like an obscure one which could be replaced. "Breath-hold" and "breath hold" seem far more common in the searches I did. Should Scuba be capitalised? I don't think it should. I will have more questions and comments, and I can see through a few tweaks that will allow me to support. --John (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, John, thank you for volunteering your help. I was just passing by, and wanted to respond to your first few questions: SCUBA is captilized throughout the Navy Dive Manual, as well as in other technical & gvt. publications so I would think it would be proper to capitalize it. I liken it to folks calling fins flippers which makes me cringe, so hopefully by maintaining the official capitalization of SCUBA, we are doing a good thing? I do know that many instructors and their students proudly wear the word SCUBA as deeply tatooed impressions on their posteriors instead of Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus which would have been a rather painful undertaking, depending on how closely their instructors followed the book and how freely the spirits were flowing. Re: breathhold, Wiktionary has it as one word but you're correct in that it is more commonly spelled breath-hold as exampled in BMJ. That should be an easy fix for Peter using the find-replace command. Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

After reading Peter's explanation below, re: etymology, and after a bit more research, I now realize how long it has been since my initial instructor training; a time when capitalization meant pass or fail. I never really thought about it until John brought up the question. Academia confirms that capitalization of commonly used words like scuba and radar are no longer necessary. Peter's explanation is correct and verifiable. I struck my suggestion for caps but left the friendly banter in tact. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi John, Atsme, Firstly, John, Thanks for offering your review, it is appreciated.

• I have no strong opinions on the spelling of breathhold/breath-hold/breath hold. Personally I slightly prefer the hyphenated version, but I am quite happy to go with any version that can be supported by reasonably convincing evidence. If we can come to a satisfactory consensus on this, it will probably become a project guideline. I suggest that a straight comparison of number of Google hits may be misleading - the context should be considered. Some time ago we came to the conclusion that freediving was the most appropriate spelling for the breathhold diving mode, after considering than many of the hits for free diving were to offers for something for which no payment was required.

• I did a spot of playing around with Google, and my findings indicate that breath-hold is used in scholarly articles. I have no definitive statistics for relative frequency, but it seems that while there may be some doubt for breathhold, and breath hold may occasionally be slightly ambiguous, there is a fairly extensive body of acceptance for breath-hold among academics, so unless there are objections, I propose to use this as the standard, and recommend it as a guideline at WikiProject Scuba diving, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Scuba is a bit different. WikiProject Scuba diving already has a guideline on this, which is to consistently use sentence case for scuba. The explanation is in one of the articles, which I will look up and link here. It was originally an acronym, but has become an ordinary noun through usage. When used as an acronym it would be proper to use all caps, but when used as an ordinary noun or adjective, as in scuba diving, scuba equipment, scuba regulator, scuba skills, scuba instructor etc, the sentence case is more appropriate, and common usage over the last 40 years or so has shifted to using sentence case unless specifically intended to mean Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus - the complete breathing set, without trimmings, open or closed circuit, and even in this case scuba is commonly accepted as an alternative. You may notice that the WikiProject title also uses sentence case, following this convention, and this goes back to before my time here.
• The explanation I was looking for can be seen at Scuba diving#Etymology. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Duly done. Are we in UK English here? I noticed we had "metres" but also "color". --John (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• We are in British English here. The first version of the article used 'metres', so according to MOS:RETAIN that determines the flavour of spellings used. I'll have a look for any more en-US spellings and correct them. --RexxS (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• As RexxS says, British English. I have now tagged as such on the talk page. Please feel welcome to correct any spelling accordingly, or if you prefer, draw my attention to it. My vision can be a bit dodgy, so I tend to miss these things, and my typing is also not entirely reliable. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

John, If I may ask a slightly personal question, what is your background in underwater diving? I ask this as I am hoping for at least one content review from someone with very little, as that is my target audience, and potentially the most useful demographic for identifying inadequate explanation. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I've snorkelled (2 ls in UK Eng) a lot and I tried scuba in a swimming pool once. I've read a book about it. I don't consider myself especially knowledgeable. --John (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can follow the technical aspects without difficulty, I will be greatly reassured, so please let me know if you notice anything that needs clarification. I am South African, we tend to accept a large number, but not all, of the American spellings as alternative normal, so I tend to not notice them.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

John, Your recent edit to section "Risks and safety" has removed reference to the problem of failure to identify the cause of an accident by broadly categorising as death by drowning and the long term effect of preventing proper analysis of the failure mode. This is considered a significant hindrance to improving diver safety by several authorities. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. I didn't like the wording as it seemed awkward. Let's try for a smoother wording that carries the meaning you want. John (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I will give it some thought, maybe refer to a ref or two, and come back with suggestions. If you come up with an improvement, give it a try.

This is the original:

Scuba diving fatalities have a major financial impact by way of lost income, lost business, insurance premium increases and high litigation costs.<ref name="Concannon 2011" /> Equipment failure is rare in open circuit scuba, and while the cause of death is commonly recorded as drowning, this is usually the consequence of an uncontrollable series of events taking place in water in which drowning is the endpoint, while the real cause remains unrecorded.<ref name="Ange 2010" /> Air embolism is also frequently cited as a cause of death, and it, too is the consequence of other factors leading to an uncontrolled and badly managed ascent, occasionally aggravated by medical conditions. About a quarter of diving fatalities are associated with cardiac events, mostly in older divers. There is a fairly large body of data on diving fatalities, but in many cases the data is poor due to the standard of investigation and reporting. This hinders research which could improve diver safety.<ref name="Ange 2010" /><ref name="Caruso 2011" />

This is the version for tweaking:

Scuba diving fatalities have a major financial impact by way of lost income, lost business, insurance premium increases and high litigation costs.<ref name="Concannon 2011" /> Equipment failure is rare in open circuit scuba, and while when the cause of death is commonly recorded as drowning, this it is usually the consequence of an uncontrollable series of events taking place in water in which drowning is the endpoint because it occurred in water, while the real initial cause remains unrecorded unknown.<ref name="Ange 2010" /> Air embolism is also frequently cited as a cause of death, and it, too is the consequence of other factors leading to an uncontrolled and badly managed ascent, occasionally aggravated by medical conditions. About a quarter of diving fatalities are associated with cardiac events, mostly in older divers. There is a fairly large body of data on diving fatalities, but in many cases the data is poor due to the standard of investigation and reporting. This hinders research which could improve diver safety.<ref name="Ange 2010" /><ref name="Caruso 2011" />

Changed to above text. Is it OK? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have had to partially revert a couple of your copyedits where they changed the meaning too much. Otherwise they are generally an improvement, and I thank you for your work. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Gradually working my way through. I think there are too many see alsos; see WP:SEEALSO. --John (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean the hatnotes, not the standard section, as this article does not have a see also section - I am not fond of them. They are OK as an aide memoire while constructing an article, but if they are still not linked from somewhere else by the time the article reaches GA, they suggest that something important has been omitted. I prefer to link to subsidiary articles from sections summarising those parts of the topic, which is what I have done here.

The hatnotes are more numerous than in an ordinary article because this is the top level article for a project with several hundred articles, only the most immediately significant of which are hatnote linked. In many cases there is a main article of the same or very similar title, but in condensing this article to such a short length, many high level related articles have been only mentioned in passing or several mentioned in one subsection. The "see also" hatnotes allow the more important and relevant ones to be drawn to the reader's attention without having to have a subsection of the same name. It is possible that some may not be necessary, but which ones are not useful?

I will consider this problem and delete any that I consider excess to requirements. If you see any that you think are not useful enough to keep, list them here and if I disagree we can get a third opinion from someone like RexxS, who is sufficiently knowledgeable in both the subject matter and the MoS to give a useful tiebreaker.

John, I need clarity on whether the perceived problem is that there are too many see also hatnote templates in total throughout the article, whether the number of hatnotes in any given section should be restricted to one, whether the number of links in any given see also hatnote should be limited, whether some of the see also hatnotes should be changed to a different hatnote, such as further, or something else I have not thought of yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been rather busy this week. I made these copyedits on a brief run through of the article. There may still be room for more. We don't need multiple hatnotes; apart from anything else the template at the bottom provides basic navigational support rather than cluttering many sections in the article. I would still like to see someone else read it over for prose and MoS before I could support. --John (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made some more tweaks and this involved adding two sources, one from the night diving article and one book source to back up altitude diving. (Some of these daughter articles are terrible, by the way.) Can you check this is ok for you? My rationale is that people should not have to click a link to find out more about a subject. I'd rather have a brief mention and explanation with a wikilink than just the wikilink in a hatnote. Our articles should work when printed, in a pinch, and this way fulfils that. As regards the further prose check I'd like to see, I wonder if Eric Corbett or SchroCat is available? Just a quick look. --John (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

John I am starting to understand your point about see also, and have made a couple more changes in the same vein (I think). I agree that some of the daughter articles leave a lot to be desired, and occasionally work on them when I run into a good reference. It will take some time unless a few more people work on the project more frequently. I have slightly changed the text about altitude diving. If you think it would be useful or necessary I can find more refs for the text as it is now, as I don't know if it is fully supported by Jackson, which I do not have. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, your text is better, thank you for that. If the content can be sourced from one of your existing sources, that is all the better. --John (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, it will be in the US Navy diving manual. and probably in the Proceedings of the validation of dive computers workshop. I will look up the sections/pages. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 03:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking good. --John (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

• What is a "stage"? I know the answer to this but it is mentioned and not explained.

  Stage now mentioned and linked in the main article text. It is a some way down the page, but would not be due in the lead. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• [[Bomb disposal|EOD]] probably breaks the egg.

  Agreed, I expanded it again. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• What is a "Diver Transfer Capsule"? We can't really just mention it in a picture caption but not in the text. And it should probably be "diver transfer capsule"?

  I have clarified that it is a closed diving bell under its alternative name. Closed bell is mentioned in the text. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Underwater welding is only mentioned in a caption.

  It is one of the many types of underwater work. The image is there to illustrate the wide range of underwater activities, as is the one of the photographer. These photos are among the best we have to show recognisable activities, but listing a large part of the range of possible underwater activities seemed a little out of scope for the top level article. It would be undue to make too much of underwater welding just because we have a photo, but without the caption, many people would not know what the diver was doing. I have given it a bit more context. Is this satisfactory? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Who was Alexander the Great and when and why did he descend in a diving bell? Only mentioning it in a caption isn't ideal.

  This one is a little problematic. There are not many illustrations available of the early days of diving. This is a nice one. The problem is that I don't have anything more I can say about it that is supported by a reliable source. I can remove it if you think that preferable. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  Added a some referenced content mentioning existence of diving bells contemporaneous with Alexander. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  This looks to be a decent book source. Proposed text: "Alexander the Great is recorded as being lowered into the Bosphorus in a glass barrel in 320 BCE." This source doesn't describe it as a diving bell and the picture doesn't look like one. I agree that it would be a shame to lose this image. --John (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  What is recorded it that there is a legend that Alexander was lowered into the Bosphorus in a glass barrel. There is also mention by Roger Bacon in a letter (De mirabili potestate artis et naturae , page 18 - translated from the Latin), that a heathen astronomer (not named) reported that Alexander used an "engine" which allowed walking on the bottom of the sea. This ties in with Bachrach, who said that Aristotle described the use of a "cauldron" which does not fill with water but retains the air, which is more consistent with an open bell, and an open bell is a far less stressed structure than a closed bell, which is subject to big pressure differences and a risk of implosion, which would be rather unpleasant in a glass barrel. I doubt that the bell used by Alexander was all glass, or that it was closed, but a simple open ended barrel or cauldron with or without a glazed window, and watertight enough to work, with enough ballast weights to make it sink, would easily be within the technical capacity of the ancient Greeks. I am more inclined to believe Aristotle who was there at the time and was a pretty good observer, than medieval European illustrators. There is also doubt about the scene being the Bosphorus. An excerpt claimed to be from Bachrach's article in the Historical diving times, reports that Aristotle refers to the siege of Tyre (332BC) as the scene, and that there are other references in poetry that are basically implausible at best. All this is a bit unreliable for my tastes, and not really needed. The current caption is at least consistent with the picture, reasonably plausible, and is used by the source of the image, so is not original research. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. I agree with you. --John (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why two pictures showing bailout cylinders? I suggest choosing the better one and removing the other. --John (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  There are three photos showing bailout cylinders. One is black, and not mentioned in the caption. That one is in the photo illustrating surface oriented diving, and is secondary to the purpose of the photo. It is not so prominent that it needs to be mentioned and bailout cylinders are standard for surface supplied diving. The second photo is to illustrate deep diving, and the bailouts are mentioned mainly because they stand out so much as they are large and yellow. they are also incidental, Open circuit bailout is standard with deep rebreather diving. The third photo is to illustrate risk management, where the bailout cylinder is the primary subject of the photo, so it must be mentioned, as bailout is not standard with open circuit recreational scuba. I could remove mention of the bailout cylinder on the deep diving photo, but then readers may wonder what it is. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

More

In the 16th and 17th centuries diving bells became more useful when a renewable supply of air could be provided to the diver at depth, and progressed to surface supplied diving helmets – in effect miniature diving bells covering the diver's head and supplied with compressed air by manually operated pumps – which were improved by attaching a waterproof suit to the helmet. In the early 19th century these became the standard diving dress, which made a far wider range of marine civil engineering and salvage projects practicable. Why does this need five references? --John (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but if I remember correctly this paragraph was condensed from a longer section in another article, probably History of underwater diving, which used those references. Some of them are paper, and I have not been able to access them yet, others only support parts of the quoted content. At least one is a non-searchable scan of a book. If it is important to eliminate one or two of the references it might be possible, but it is likely to take a while. I will look into it. The tradition of putting all the references at the end of the paragraph may delay results.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Of the six references:

• "Broadwater" is a high quality secondary source, but is paywalled. I have no access and have no idea of how much of the paragraph it supports, but because of the quality I would not feel justified in summarily removing it just because I can't read it myself.
• "Slight" is a scanned book. It will take some time to read through as it is not searchable. I know that it describes the earliest developments of what would become the standard diving dress. Specifically the surface supplied helmet, and if I remember correctly refers to an early use of a bell for salvage work, so is relevant.

Supports development of the standard diving dress during this period and use of divers and bells with surface supplied air for a major salvage operation, probably the first of its kind. Primary source with a wealth of detail, almost all of it not particularly relevant, 182 pages long. The useful information is scattered through the document. Probably not sufficient on its own.

• "Acott" provides a timeline, mentioning salvage using bells and helmets, with dates, and is relevant.
• "Davis" is paper, I have not been able to find a digital version. It is probably quite high quality, and by a person with a lot of experience in the industry, and a good reputation. I have no idea how much of the paragraph it supports.
• "Bevan" is paper, I have no access, and have not found a digital version. Like Davis, Bevan has a good reputation and a long involvement with the industry, and has written several specialist books in the field. I have no idea how much of the paragraph it supports.
• "Halley" supports one example of a tested diving bell. It is the least useful as it is duplicated by Acott, which supports more of the paragraph. I will remove it. (done)

In conclusion, I would not like to remove the three highest quality references just because I can't read them myself. As I don't know which of the three supports any given part of the quoted material, or if they support it all, I hesitate to discard any of them. The accessible references support the material together, but not alone. I am confident that the material is uncontroversial in general, and that the current combination of references supports the quoted paragraph adequately, but if any of the references still used were to be removed I would no longer be confident. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Similar reasoning applies to the next paragraph, which also has six references. Only one of the references is accessible on the internet as far as my efforts have shown, and it does not directly support all six uncontroversial claims in the last two sentences of the paragraph. It is possible that not all six are needed, but I have no way of identifying which may be redundant, and someone thought they were necessary at some time in the history of the article. They are all what I would consider reliable sources based on the authors, and highly likely to be relevant to the supported text based on the titles.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you've used it, but I can strongly recommend WP:RX, which is efficient at finding research papers and short sections of books to assist in situations like this. Turnaround time is usually less than a week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, I hadn't heard of that. I would see sections referenced with five or six footnotes as problematic because it is indicative of what User:Pbsouthwood candidly describes above; the maintenance of multiple inaccessible references for historic reasons, without any current editor knowing exactly what references what. Other than Mike Christie's interesting suggestion, I would suggest finding better, more targeted and accessible references and replacing the historic bundles of refs. We're nearly there I think. --John (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have used resource request before, when I needed a reference that was not available through any of my other contacts. It took a few days to get what I had been struggling to get hold of for weeks, so yes, they are handy. I generally don't trouble them to find references for uncontroversial material, and as far as I know they get material when you know what you want and can specify the pages. I think it is out of scope to ask them for a whole book to verify one sentence, much as I would like to increase my collection of references. However, some of the references are mentioned by page or page range, so I will request them. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way you could source it yourself? You seem to have some good things there. If not I recommend using WP:RX. It's worth getting this right as these little bundles of refs are a red flag. --John (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have requested at RX and already received a response. I may have some of the resources today! • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I got some and was able to eliminate a couple of redundant, though perfectly good references. It turned out that most of them had much the same content, and actually referenced most of the same original sources, (not altogether surprising) and most of them covered most of the content in the two paragraphs, so I specified more precisely which supported what and kept where possible the best quality and the most accessible. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspected that might have been the case. There is room for a little more work in this line but it can be done at leisure after the FAC process is wrapped up. John (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate all the work you have done in response to my comments. While it is not yet perfect (and perhaps never will be), I think we have now passed the level of a FA. I therefore support on prose and completeness. --John (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

John, Your comments have helped improve the article, which is the important thing, and it will continue to be improved as people find things that could be done better, so I hope you won't mind me asking how abbreviating decompression sickness helps improve the article? Cheers and thanks for your diligent attention to detail and eventual support. As a gesture of appreciation to everyone who has helped with copyediting I am translating the article for another Wikipedia in the only other language in which I am moderately competent - Afrikaans. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Delighted to be of service. If we abbreviate a term, the normal practice is to spell it out in full with the abbreviation in brackets the first time it is mentioned, then use the abbreviation thereafter. I was lucky enough to spend some time in your beautiful country in the 1980s so I know the Cape region a little bit but Ek kan ongelukkig nie Afrikaans praat nie. John (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through; please revert my copyedits if I make a mess of anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Christie, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• "shared with terrestrial mammals as a neural response": suggest cutting "as a neural response".

  Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "This is accelerated by exertion, which uses oxygen faster, or by hyperventilation, which reduces the carbon dioxide level in the blood which in turn may increase the oxygen-haemoglobin affinity, reducing availability of oxygen to brain tissue towards the end of the dive (Bohr effect), and suppress the urge to breathe, making it easier to hold the breath to the point of blackout." This is a long and complicated sentence that would be good to break up. Why does it say that reduced CO
  ₂ "may" increase the O2-haemoglobin affinity? Assuming we don't need "may", here's a suggested rewrite: "This is accelerated by exertion, which uses oxygen faster, or by hyperventilation, which reduces the carbon dioxide level in the blood. Lower CO
  ₂ levels increase the oxygen-haemoglobin affinity, reducing availability of oxygen to brain tissue towards the end of the dive (Bohr effect); they also suppress the urge to breathe, making it easier to hold the breath to the point of blackout."

  I will refer to the sources to be sure about the "may", but that looks good. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Changed as suggested. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• What is "increased dead space"?

  Linked to Dead space (physiology). • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "with a consistently higher threshold of hearing underwater, but also significantly skewed": "skewed" presumably means improved hearing in some frequencies and worse in others; can we say something to that effect? E.g. "with sensitivity to higher frequency sounds reduced the most", if that's correct?

  I will check the sources for details. If I remember correctly some research indicates an increased range at high pitches, but the curve was not linear. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  You are correct about the sensitivity to higher frequencies being reduced the most. According to Anthony, T. G.; Wright, N. A.; Evans, M. A. (2009). Review of diver noise exposure (PDF). Research Report 735 (Report). QinetiQ. Retrieved 29 July 2017.,
  Comparison of the air and underwater auditory threshold curves (Figure 2.2) shows the following:
  • the human auditory system is most sensitive to waterborne sound at frequencies from 400 Hz to 1 kHz, with a peak at approximately 800 Hz. Hence, these frequencies have the greatest potential for damage;
  • within this frequency band, underwater hearing is 35-40 dB less sensitive than in air;
  • for airborne sound, hearing is most sensitive between 2 and 6 kHz, with a maximum sensitivity at approximately 4 kHz. However, underwater hearing is less sensitive at these frequencies, and so the noise hazard is reduced;
  • above 6 kHz, there is again reduced hearing underwater compared with air, although hearing is still possible at frequencies as high as 16 kHz;
  • below 400 Hz, the underwater hearing threshold drops off at a rate of approximately 35 dB per decade to 40 Hz. This is not as rapid as for air, and suggests that sound at frequencies below 100 Hz contributes to underwater sound perception to a far higher degree than in air, and so may be a greater hazard;
  • for relatively high frequencies, a higher level of noise would be permissible underwater than would be in air, as a result of the reduced sensitivity of the ear underwater.
  but this is a bit more detail than appropriate for this article, and I think adding your second sentence will be sufficient. Another source which I do not consider particularly reliable suggests that at higher frequencies the curves may cross. I do not plan to add that. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• "how the breathing gas is used:" -- I think it's OK to put a carriage return after a colon, but since this syntactically introduces a list I think the subsequent list elements should look like list elements -- bullet points for example.

  Fair comment. It probably was a bulleted list some time ago, but some people don't like lists, and two items is a very short list. Would you be happy with just changing it to a full stop? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  I made it a full stop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• "the first C & R tables (Bureau of Construction and Repair)": I had to read this two or three times to realize that it refers to decompression tables, not some other kind of table known as a C & R table. I'd suggestion relegating "Bureau of Construction and Repair" to a link or footnote, and making it "C & R decompression tables"; or else make it clearer in the text why the name is worth mentioning -- I get the impression this was a historical milestone, or perhaps that these tables went into widespread use, but the text doesn't really say.

  A moderate milestone - the first US Navy tables, and the US Navy has done more work in that field than any other organisation, so probably worth mentioning. I don't think they were much used by anyone else, and had problems, so were not used for long. I will clarify. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Rearranged and linked. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "decompression by conventional models results in bubble formation which is then eliminated by re-dissolving at the decompression stops which is slower than off-gassing while still in solution. This indicates the importance of minimising bubble phase for efficient gas elimination": I think this is much too compressed, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun; I don't follow this at all. Can it be clarified a bit?

  Yes, the problem is more where to stop, RexxS' suggestion below may be sufficient, your call. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Conventional systems of decompression allow bubbles to form, which are then re-dissolved when the diver makes a decompression stop; the dissolved gas eventually leaves through the lungs ("off-gassing"). This is slower than making a deeper stop before the bubbles form, and waiting for a short time while the excess gas is removed through the lungs. Is that more comprehensible? If so, we can amend the text along those lines. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  I have rewritten it in the hope of clarification. Let me know if you think this is enough. I can go on almost indefinitely, but don't want to expand the paragraph out of proportion to its importance.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Also added a link to an article explaining in more detail• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Depending on the circumstances it may be established by a signed statement by the diver that he or she does not suffer from any of the listed disqualifying conditions and is able to manage the ordinary physical requirements of diving, to a detailed medical examination by a physician registered as a medical examiner of divers following a procedural checklist, and a legal document of fitness to dive issued by the medical examiner." Why "to a detailed..."? Is this debris from a previous sentence structure? I couldn't parse the sentence.
  • It probably should read something like: "Depending on the circumstances it may be established either by a signed statement by the diver that he or she does not suffer from any of the listed disqualifying conditions and is able to manage the ordinary physical requirements of diving, or by to a detailed medical examination by a physician registered as a medical examiner of divers following a procedural checklist, and a legal document of fitness to dive issued by the medical examiner." Is that better? --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Intermediate options are also possible. I was suggesting a range, with the two specified options as the extremes. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Rewritten to describe more precisely. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• The "Medical aspects of diving" section has two subsections, "Fitness to dive" and "Diving medicine", along with a short introductory sentence, but the introductory sentence doesn't mention fitness to dive at all. I would suggest eliminating the introductory sentence completely, along with the inline see also links (all of which are already linked elsewhere in the article). Just have the two subsections, moving anything necessary from the first sentence into the "Diving medicine" section.

  Rewrote intro to include fitness examinations, as they are part of the diving medical practitioner's specialisation, and simplified scope to exclude examples, which will be merged into the subsection. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think "Scuba diving fatalities" is a good see also link for "Risks and safety", since it only addresses part of the topic of the section. The fifth paragraph starts with that exact phrase, so I'd just link that instead.

  Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Commercial diving operations tend to be less tolerant of risk than recreational, particularly technical divers, who are less constrained by occupational health and safety legislation." I don't follow; if they are less tolerant of risk, that means they avoid risk, so they're safer, so health and safety legislation would not be regarded as more constraining than for recreational divers. Should this read "more tolerant", or perhaps "more risky", if it's the risk, not the tolerance, that is increased?
  • In most jurisdictions, recreational divers are not subject to occupational health and safety legislation at all. Therefore they are not constrained by it, and tend to be more tolerant of taking risks than their commercial counterparts, to whom the H&SAW legislation very definitely applies (e.g. the UK has specific legislation - the Diving at Work Regulations). I don't think there is an error in the current text, but perhaps it could be better explained. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Commercial diving exposes the diver to more and sometimes greater hazards, but the governing legislation is less tolerant of risk, so the cost of controlling the risk is orders of magnitude higher than for recreational diving. I will try to make this more clear. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Rewritten to clarify. Recreational diving: less hazard, but more risk is acceptable, particularly by technical divers (Tech diving may be considered an extreme sport). Commercial diving - Occupational safety and health regulations apply, often with specific diving regulations added Highly regulated, strict rules. Scientific diving - varies from place to place, generally follows commercial practice, Military diving - generally follows commercial practice except for combat and security operations, where special rules apply. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'd cut the sentence defining "human error"; you have a link in the previous sentence.

  Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• There's some repetition in the section on human factors; you say human error is the direct cause of 60-80% of all accidents, and later say that human error and panic and the leading causes. I think this paragraph could be made more concise.

  Rearranged and changed a bit to keep ideas together. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• The risk management paragraph starts with a list of risk control measure categories, and finishes with a list of risk measures; I'd suggest combining the two sentences, making it clear that the second sentence is a list of specific examples of the categories enumerated in the first sentence, and putting the middle sentence last.

  The list of risk management examples are actually those representative of recreational, particularly technical diving. Commercial diving can go quite a lot further. I will try to make this clearer. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

-- That's everything I could spot. A very interesting article. Overall I think the language is rather technical, and I would like to find some more simplifications, but the language is not out of place given the subject matter and I think it meets FA standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been exceptionally valuable feedback. Thanks again. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For perspective, what background do you have in diving? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

None to speak of. I snorkelled on a reef in Mexico about twenty-five years ago; does that count? I've read popular accounts of decompression sickness and how it is avoided, but I have no specialist knowledge. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It does not count. If you can follow without difficulty, we should not be too far off the mark regarding terminology. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I think I have done something about all of the listed items. Some I just followed your recommendation, and others are my best try at a solution, and should preferably be checked to see if you agree. One stands at a suggestion waiting on your response. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Support. The only unstruck point above is very minor and I trust Peter will amend the relevant sentence if there's a way to concisely make it more informative about the exact changes in hearing. On another look through I don't see any further obvious simplifications in language that could be made. An impressive article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I have done that amendment. Thanks for the review and support. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are close to wrapping this up now. John, would you like to take another look at this before it is promoted? If there are no major issues, it could be polished after promotion, but I'm happy to wait for you if you would like a little longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sarastro1, thank you for your patience. I think we can wrap this up now. John (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: We should probably have this framed as a model of what a FAC should look like; thanks to all who have contributed. As a final point (not worth holding this up any further), someone should probably check this for duplinks; I see a few and I'm not sure if they are there for a reason, or just there by accident. Not a huge issue, but worth making sure about. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.