Decompression theory was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Decompression theory was copied or moved into Physiology of decompression with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Material from Decompression (diving) was split to Decompression theory on 14 March 2013. 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 (diving). |
The article was split from an excessively large B-class article, and there was no immediately obvious reason not to rate it as B-class, as it comprises a fairly comprehensive section which is suitable for a stand-alone article after providing a suitable lead section. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Through an AfC submission, it's come to my attention this particular term is a non-notable neologism. Of the 3 references used, 2 are written by Pyle himself, and one is a broken URL. If nobody opposes this, I'll go ahead and delete the subsection as unencyclopaedic. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should be max four (4) paragraphs.
This one is eleven (11) paragraphs.
That's a bit long.
Could cause symptoms of TL;DR.
Strongly suggest trimming it down to size of four, succinct paragraphs, of four or five sentences each.
Good luck,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer: Spinningspark ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please don't be upset by this, but I am going to quick-fail this article. The page undoubtedly has the potential to be a good article, but the major problems are likely to take a while to sort out and a full review at this stage would be couterproductive as it would only need another review after the rework. You can resubmit the article any time you think it is ready. If you want, you can drop a note on my talk page when you have resubmitted it and I will take a look to save you having to wait in the queue again. Or you can wait for another reviewer, your choice. There are two major areas I am concerned about;
Hi Spinningspark.
I was hoping for something a little more practically useful to improve the article, but I will see what I can do with what you have provided.
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Spinningspark. I have made a few changes and am adding citations inline. This will take a little while and I am adding what I consider more than strictly necessary. You may notice that in several sections the same reference is cited for each of the paragraphs. This is because they are all about the same thing and usually the same reference will cover the subject well enough to be usable. Where this is not the case I am using as many references as I think are useful to establish the point, but sometimes that requires a break between citations to fill the gaps, and some will take longer than others. It will be helpful if you would tag any sentences or paragraphs which you think specifically need citation so I can be sure not to miss them. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The table addressing the solubility of gases in fluids (water, lipid) is largely meaningless without units. mol per liter? liter gas per liter fluid?.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.206.17 ( talk) 13:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Daniel Case (
talk ·
contribs) 03:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, but like Spinngspark I'm going to have to quick fail this article ... again.
Some of the issues raised in his review have been addressed but many still remain. To wit, a lot of uncited statements. Most are the end of otherwise-cited paragraphs; it seems that they have been added since the cites were added. This is uancceptable for a GA nominee. This is even more unacceptable when the previous review mentioned the same issue.
Here are just some examples of statements needing citation:
And that's not even getting halfway through the article. Nor is it the only flaw.
The graph under "Saturation decompression" is a huge layout failure. It looks awful to have it poking into the space to the right of the article. Do something about it. Use {{ wide image}} or considering redoing it so it can fit into the article the way images are supposed to.
The graphs under "Range of application" and "Deterministic models" are also waaaaay too large. Imagine what it's like to read this on a mobile device (actually, don't imagine, if you don't have one handy ... just load this into your browser and narrow it down to about the size and shape of a phone.
As noted on the talk page, the solubility table should list what unit is used to measure solubility. This was noted since the last review and hasn't been done.
There are also a lot of single-sentence paragraphs, and even one single-sentence section ("Breathing gas composition"). They should really be combined with adjacent sections or grafs. In fact, a lot of the subsections should really be joined together ... the article's table of contents is a nightmare of oversectionalization.
Frankly, the larger flaw is that it often seems to be trying to be a textbook rather than an encylopedia article. Remember summary style when deciding what to include and not include. Maybe all this is necessary, but I fear any reader, particularly one who feels the need to understand this, is going to feel as if someone was trying to assault them with text. At least as things now stand. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Daniel Case, Firstly, which criteria are you failing it on? Please refer to how it fails those criteria.
Since you have failed the article, Can I ask you to be helpful and actually tag those statements which you consider require specific citation?
I tried {{ wide image}} on the saturation table graphic. It works fine on my wide screen, but actually looks far worse on your narrow screen example.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Taking a step back from the request to add units to the table, is the table being used well? Duecker uses the table to make the point that nitrogen's fat solubility is higher than that of hydrogen, neon, or helium. Since nitrogen has, of the four, the closest fat solubility to that of anesthetics, he says one would expect from the Myer-Overton theory of anesthesia that nitrogen could cause intoxication at depth. None of that is communicated by the section of this article that contains the table. Solubility of the different gases comes up much later when nitrox and trimix are discussed, but neither the table nor the specific values in it are referred to explicitly. Something to think about before putting too much effort into tracking down Duecker's sources. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
In order to address some of the GA review objections to this article I intend to split out much of the material into two subsidiary articles: Physiology of decompression, and Decompression modelling, and summarise the contents of those parts of the existing article. As I am not expecting this to be controversial, I intend to just go ahead and do it some time soon. If anyone has useful suggestions for the split, please feel welcome to comment here. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Update with some of the work that has been done on comparison of efficiency of stop depth distribution, referencing Simon Mitchell's video on "What is optimal decompression" May 2020 on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIO9qI5XODw including:
· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Decompression theory was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Decompression theory was copied or moved into Physiology of decompression with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Material from Decompression (diving) was split to Decompression theory on 14 March 2013. 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 (diving). |
|
The article was split from an excessively large B-class article, and there was no immediately obvious reason not to rate it as B-class, as it comprises a fairly comprehensive section which is suitable for a stand-alone article after providing a suitable lead section. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Through an AfC submission, it's come to my attention this particular term is a non-notable neologism. Of the 3 references used, 2 are written by Pyle himself, and one is a broken URL. If nobody opposes this, I'll go ahead and delete the subsection as unencyclopaedic. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should be max four (4) paragraphs.
This one is eleven (11) paragraphs.
That's a bit long.
Could cause symptoms of TL;DR.
Strongly suggest trimming it down to size of four, succinct paragraphs, of four or five sentences each.
Good luck,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer: Spinningspark ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please don't be upset by this, but I am going to quick-fail this article. The page undoubtedly has the potential to be a good article, but the major problems are likely to take a while to sort out and a full review at this stage would be couterproductive as it would only need another review after the rework. You can resubmit the article any time you think it is ready. If you want, you can drop a note on my talk page when you have resubmitted it and I will take a look to save you having to wait in the queue again. Or you can wait for another reviewer, your choice. There are two major areas I am concerned about;
Hi Spinningspark.
I was hoping for something a little more practically useful to improve the article, but I will see what I can do with what you have provided.
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Spinningspark. I have made a few changes and am adding citations inline. This will take a little while and I am adding what I consider more than strictly necessary. You may notice that in several sections the same reference is cited for each of the paragraphs. This is because they are all about the same thing and usually the same reference will cover the subject well enough to be usable. Where this is not the case I am using as many references as I think are useful to establish the point, but sometimes that requires a break between citations to fill the gaps, and some will take longer than others. It will be helpful if you would tag any sentences or paragraphs which you think specifically need citation so I can be sure not to miss them. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The table addressing the solubility of gases in fluids (water, lipid) is largely meaningless without units. mol per liter? liter gas per liter fluid?.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.206.17 ( talk) 13:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Daniel Case (
talk ·
contribs) 03:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, but like Spinngspark I'm going to have to quick fail this article ... again.
Some of the issues raised in his review have been addressed but many still remain. To wit, a lot of uncited statements. Most are the end of otherwise-cited paragraphs; it seems that they have been added since the cites were added. This is uancceptable for a GA nominee. This is even more unacceptable when the previous review mentioned the same issue.
Here are just some examples of statements needing citation:
And that's not even getting halfway through the article. Nor is it the only flaw.
The graph under "Saturation decompression" is a huge layout failure. It looks awful to have it poking into the space to the right of the article. Do something about it. Use {{ wide image}} or considering redoing it so it can fit into the article the way images are supposed to.
The graphs under "Range of application" and "Deterministic models" are also waaaaay too large. Imagine what it's like to read this on a mobile device (actually, don't imagine, if you don't have one handy ... just load this into your browser and narrow it down to about the size and shape of a phone.
As noted on the talk page, the solubility table should list what unit is used to measure solubility. This was noted since the last review and hasn't been done.
There are also a lot of single-sentence paragraphs, and even one single-sentence section ("Breathing gas composition"). They should really be combined with adjacent sections or grafs. In fact, a lot of the subsections should really be joined together ... the article's table of contents is a nightmare of oversectionalization.
Frankly, the larger flaw is that it often seems to be trying to be a textbook rather than an encylopedia article. Remember summary style when deciding what to include and not include. Maybe all this is necessary, but I fear any reader, particularly one who feels the need to understand this, is going to feel as if someone was trying to assault them with text. At least as things now stand. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Daniel Case, Firstly, which criteria are you failing it on? Please refer to how it fails those criteria.
Since you have failed the article, Can I ask you to be helpful and actually tag those statements which you consider require specific citation?
I tried {{ wide image}} on the saturation table graphic. It works fine on my wide screen, but actually looks far worse on your narrow screen example.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Taking a step back from the request to add units to the table, is the table being used well? Duecker uses the table to make the point that nitrogen's fat solubility is higher than that of hydrogen, neon, or helium. Since nitrogen has, of the four, the closest fat solubility to that of anesthetics, he says one would expect from the Myer-Overton theory of anesthesia that nitrogen could cause intoxication at depth. None of that is communicated by the section of this article that contains the table. Solubility of the different gases comes up much later when nitrox and trimix are discussed, but neither the table nor the specific values in it are referred to explicitly. Something to think about before putting too much effort into tracking down Duecker's sources. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
In order to address some of the GA review objections to this article I intend to split out much of the material into two subsidiary articles: Physiology of decompression, and Decompression modelling, and summarise the contents of those parts of the existing article. As I am not expecting this to be controversial, I intend to just go ahead and do it some time soon. If anyone has useful suggestions for the split, please feel welcome to comment here. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Update with some of the work that has been done on comparison of efficiency of stop depth distribution, referencing Simon Mitchell's video on "What is optimal decompression" May 2020 on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIO9qI5XODw including:
· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)