![]() | Decompression equipment 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: September 3, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Decompression practice was split to Decompression equipment on 09:49, 16 March 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Decompression practice. |
![]() | The contents of the Jonline page were merged into Decompression equipment on 30 July 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 07:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fine. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None identified with Earwig's tool |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I'm not seeing anything missing. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fine. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Fine |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Well done |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Excellent overall, but "part of a saturation system" could be more specific/improved. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Once again, a good and worthy nomination which has been appropriately and collaboratively tweaked. |
This is achieved by increasing the fraction of oxygen in the breathing gas used, whereas substitution of a different inert gas will not produce the desired effect. Any substitution may introduce counter-diffusion complications, owing to differing rates of diffusion of the inert gases, which can lead to a net gain in total dissolved gas tension in a tissue.That's rather less concise, but I think there are several concepts being described in the previous single sentence, so perhaps we need a longer passage to tease them out. I removed "usually" because I don't believe anybody switches inert gases to accelerate deco. There may be an odd esoteric example that I'm unaware of, but I think we can state with some confidence that increasing the oxygen fraction in the mix is how it is done. Increasing the "partial pressure" of oxygen is, IMHO, incorrect as you could simply descend on the same mix to do that, and it would not accelerate decompression! -- RexxS ( talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
... and that's probably enough feedback for now. I note that the tables & algorithms portion of the article is a large part of the total article text. Jclemens ( talk) 20:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
V-Planner runs the Variable Permeability Model (VPM; Yount et al., 2000) and allows the choice of VPM-B and VPM-B/E, with six conservatism levels (baseline plus five incrementally more conservative ones). GAP allows the user to choose between a multitude of Bühlmann-based algorithms and the full RGBM (Wienke, 2001) in its five conservatism levels (baseline, two incrementally more liberal and two incrementally more conservative)
All the changes are looking good so far--we just need to get the Ratio Decompression settled out and this is headed for a pass. Jclemens ( talk) 02:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decompression equipment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Jonline be merged into this article with a redirect to the relevant section.
A Jonline is a simple piece of decompression equipment, it is already discussed in this article to the same level as in the primary article, and the primary article remains a short stub with little likelihood of advancing beyond a short stub in the foreseeable future. It may also not comply with general notability requirements. This article already contains the bulk of the primary article in a section suitable for use as a redirect target. In effect, all that needs to be done is to blank Jonline, make it a redirect to Decompression equipment#Jonlines and clean up a few links.
No opposition, will merge as uncontroversial when I have the time. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Decompression equipment 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: September 3, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Decompression practice was split to Decompression equipment on 09:49, 16 March 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Decompression practice. |
![]() | The contents of the Jonline page were merged into Decompression equipment on 30 July 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 07:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fine. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None identified with Earwig's tool |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I'm not seeing anything missing. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fine. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Fine |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Well done |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Excellent overall, but "part of a saturation system" could be more specific/improved. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Once again, a good and worthy nomination which has been appropriately and collaboratively tweaked. |
This is achieved by increasing the fraction of oxygen in the breathing gas used, whereas substitution of a different inert gas will not produce the desired effect. Any substitution may introduce counter-diffusion complications, owing to differing rates of diffusion of the inert gases, which can lead to a net gain in total dissolved gas tension in a tissue.That's rather less concise, but I think there are several concepts being described in the previous single sentence, so perhaps we need a longer passage to tease them out. I removed "usually" because I don't believe anybody switches inert gases to accelerate deco. There may be an odd esoteric example that I'm unaware of, but I think we can state with some confidence that increasing the oxygen fraction in the mix is how it is done. Increasing the "partial pressure" of oxygen is, IMHO, incorrect as you could simply descend on the same mix to do that, and it would not accelerate decompression! -- RexxS ( talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
... and that's probably enough feedback for now. I note that the tables & algorithms portion of the article is a large part of the total article text. Jclemens ( talk) 20:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
V-Planner runs the Variable Permeability Model (VPM; Yount et al., 2000) and allows the choice of VPM-B and VPM-B/E, with six conservatism levels (baseline plus five incrementally more conservative ones). GAP allows the user to choose between a multitude of Bühlmann-based algorithms and the full RGBM (Wienke, 2001) in its five conservatism levels (baseline, two incrementally more liberal and two incrementally more conservative)
All the changes are looking good so far--we just need to get the Ratio Decompression settled out and this is headed for a pass. Jclemens ( talk) 02:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decompression equipment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Jonline be merged into this article with a redirect to the relevant section.
A Jonline is a simple piece of decompression equipment, it is already discussed in this article to the same level as in the primary article, and the primary article remains a short stub with little likelihood of advancing beyond a short stub in the foreseeable future. It may also not comply with general notability requirements. This article already contains the bulk of the primary article in a section suitable for use as a redirect target. In effect, all that needs to be done is to blank Jonline, make it a redirect to Decompression equipment#Jonlines and clean up a few links.
No opposition, will merge as uncontroversial when I have the time. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)