![]() | Decompression (diving) 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 17, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | Material from Decompression (diving) was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
![]() |
|
(discussion copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scuba diving)
I have had a look at a few of the articles relating to decompression, and I think that some of them should be merged. A main article Decompression (diving) could be created and some of the more trivial articles like Decompression stop, Decompression curve and No Decompression Limit could be merged into it and redirected. Decompression is a major topic for diving, and I think the article should be planned a bit before starting if we do it. Any suggestions? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, Thats about it for now. I'm saturated with decompression theory and can't see the wood for the trees anymore. I will wait for comments or requests for clarification. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest using the term Decompression Sickness (DCS - aka The Bends, Caissons Disease, etc.) for this article instead of Decompression Illness (DCI). Decompression Illness includes Air Embolism and other conditions that can result from reduction of pressure, including Decompression Sickness. Since the article deals with decompression models, tables, and planning it is only dealing with the attempts to prevent the Decompression Sickness subset of Decompression Illness. All the models, tables, and planning will not prevent an Air Embolism from a panicked ascent or baroparisis from a blocked sinus, both which would fall under the Decompression Illness definition as described by Francis. KarlEHuggins ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It is now pretty large, and will probably still grow a bit more, as there is information on some algorithms I am still looking for, and it needs a bit on development/adaptation of models for alternative diluent gases. Also I am sure I have missed a lot of explanatory detail, more diagrams, illustrations and photos etc. To get to the point: Is it too big, and if it should be split, how should that be done? Comments and suggestions requested. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi George, I see you have been copyediting on a few pages on my watchlist. Your comments on Nitrogen narcosis encourage me to suggest Decompression (diving) as a possible target for your discerning eye. It needs an outsiders view and comments on its strengths and weaknesses. I am too involved to see the wood for the trees, and have no idea of how understandable it is to a layperson. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Split out and replace with summary in existing title Decompression (diving):
Comments and suggestions are requested. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Split apart into:
• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Article has been split four ways:
Article passes on all criteria. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I hereby nominate this article for A-class, and open the discussion.
For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page.
Please review the article and add your comments below:
A-Class criteria from WP:ACLASS:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written. A peer review should make the article a viable candidate for FA. Assessing an article as A-Class requires more than one reviewer. There are two basic methods available for doing this.
Standards for Featured article WP:FA Criteria:
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
- It is—
- (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
- (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
- (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
- (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
- It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
- (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
- (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
- Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
- Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
1. It is:
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses.
5. No Original Research (not specified in above criteria, but required anyway).
Following the A-class article assessment criteria stating that An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues
Reviewer: Andreas.sta ( talk) 14:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( talk · contribs) 15:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. Comments will come soon. Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( talk) 15:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@ RexxS: It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me which national variety of English any article uses, but Decompression (diving) should be consistent and not mix varieties.
You're right that the earliest edit to introduce a word that varies among varieties of English used "pressurised". I missed that. That same edit also introduced "pressurized" a few sentences further down, so that edit is inconclusive. Before the next user began contributing, the article contained both "organizations" / "organisations", and "recognize" / "recognise". It also contained the American "meters", "modeling", "program" (as in training), and "realized", but the British "flavoured" and "paralysed". I assessed Pbsouthwood's edits as favoring American English on the basis of more words with American spellings being used as of 06:42 31 October 2011. (I don't see the relevance of December 2011, as the American/British mix had not changed by that point.)
It furthermore seemed reasonable, as Peter is still active and contributed 94% of the text, to assume the current article largely reflects his spelling preferences. The current article uses the American "authorized", "maximizing", "metabolized", "minimizing", "modeled", "modeling", "pressurization", "recognized", "stabilizes", and "unpressurized", against the British "behavior" and "modelling". Perhaps Peter will weigh in. I'm happy to support whatever variety he wants or consensus arrives at, but the article should not be mixing "modeling" and "modelling", "recognized" and "behaviour" as it does today.
As you expressed no specific objection to the other 99% of the edit you reverted, I am implementing those improvements again. Feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page if there's something that troubles you. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decompression (diving). 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decompression (diving). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Decompression (diving) 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 17, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | Material from Decompression (diving) was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
![]() |
|
(discussion copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scuba diving)
I have had a look at a few of the articles relating to decompression, and I think that some of them should be merged. A main article Decompression (diving) could be created and some of the more trivial articles like Decompression stop, Decompression curve and No Decompression Limit could be merged into it and redirected. Decompression is a major topic for diving, and I think the article should be planned a bit before starting if we do it. Any suggestions? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, Thats about it for now. I'm saturated with decompression theory and can't see the wood for the trees anymore. I will wait for comments or requests for clarification. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest using the term Decompression Sickness (DCS - aka The Bends, Caissons Disease, etc.) for this article instead of Decompression Illness (DCI). Decompression Illness includes Air Embolism and other conditions that can result from reduction of pressure, including Decompression Sickness. Since the article deals with decompression models, tables, and planning it is only dealing with the attempts to prevent the Decompression Sickness subset of Decompression Illness. All the models, tables, and planning will not prevent an Air Embolism from a panicked ascent or baroparisis from a blocked sinus, both which would fall under the Decompression Illness definition as described by Francis. KarlEHuggins ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It is now pretty large, and will probably still grow a bit more, as there is information on some algorithms I am still looking for, and it needs a bit on development/adaptation of models for alternative diluent gases. Also I am sure I have missed a lot of explanatory detail, more diagrams, illustrations and photos etc. To get to the point: Is it too big, and if it should be split, how should that be done? Comments and suggestions requested. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi George, I see you have been copyediting on a few pages on my watchlist. Your comments on Nitrogen narcosis encourage me to suggest Decompression (diving) as a possible target for your discerning eye. It needs an outsiders view and comments on its strengths and weaknesses. I am too involved to see the wood for the trees, and have no idea of how understandable it is to a layperson. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Split out and replace with summary in existing title Decompression (diving):
Comments and suggestions are requested. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Split apart into:
• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Article has been split four ways:
Article passes on all criteria. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I hereby nominate this article for A-class, and open the discussion.
For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page.
Please review the article and add your comments below:
A-Class criteria from WP:ACLASS:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written. A peer review should make the article a viable candidate for FA. Assessing an article as A-Class requires more than one reviewer. There are two basic methods available for doing this.
Standards for Featured article WP:FA Criteria:
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
- It is—
- (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
- (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
- (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
- (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
- It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
- (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
- (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
- Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
- Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
1. It is:
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses.
5. No Original Research (not specified in above criteria, but required anyway).
Following the A-class article assessment criteria stating that An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues
Reviewer: Andreas.sta ( talk) 14:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( talk · contribs) 15:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. Comments will come soon. Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( talk) 15:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@ RexxS: It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me which national variety of English any article uses, but Decompression (diving) should be consistent and not mix varieties.
You're right that the earliest edit to introduce a word that varies among varieties of English used "pressurised". I missed that. That same edit also introduced "pressurized" a few sentences further down, so that edit is inconclusive. Before the next user began contributing, the article contained both "organizations" / "organisations", and "recognize" / "recognise". It also contained the American "meters", "modeling", "program" (as in training), and "realized", but the British "flavoured" and "paralysed". I assessed Pbsouthwood's edits as favoring American English on the basis of more words with American spellings being used as of 06:42 31 October 2011. (I don't see the relevance of December 2011, as the American/British mix had not changed by that point.)
It furthermore seemed reasonable, as Peter is still active and contributed 94% of the text, to assume the current article largely reflects his spelling preferences. The current article uses the American "authorized", "maximizing", "metabolized", "minimizing", "modeled", "modeling", "pressurization", "recognized", "stabilizes", and "unpressurized", against the British "behavior" and "modelling". Perhaps Peter will weigh in. I'm happy to support whatever variety he wants or consensus arrives at, but the article should not be mixing "modeling" and "modelling", "recognized" and "behaviour" as it does today.
As you expressed no specific objection to the other 99% of the edit you reverted, I am implementing those improvements again. Feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page if there's something that troubles you. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decompression (diving). 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decompression (diving). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)