This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve
Underwater diving-related articles to a
feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
The content of this article was split from the excessively large B-class article
Decompression (diving). There was no immediately obvious reason why it should not retain B-class rating as the split section was reasonably complete at the time and suitable for a stand-alone article. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
14:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Lede intro sect too long
Per
WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should be max four (4) paragraphs.
Sorry this has waited so long for a GA review. I'm not up to it right now but I do have a couple quick suggestions:
In the bulleted time line, choose either present tense (e.g. "Thalmann extends use of E-L model"), past tense ("Dr. Andrew Smith first used the terms"), or noun construction ("Introduction of recompression tables") and stick with one throughout.
Define uncommon terms inline (e.g. "supersaturation") or at least link to articles on them.
Rephrase: "A large number of decompression experiments were performed" it should be a large number was but that sounds weird.
I am about to start reviewing this article. Disclaimer, I am part of the GA cup and I know next to nothing about decompression other than it involves people getting wet ;-) but that also allows me to take an outsider's view of the article to ensure it's a Good Article for all audiences, not just those that already know a lot about the subject.
MPJ-US12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for taking this on, however after about 4 months of waiting, I now have 3 articles simultaneously in GA review, and a business trip next week where I may be cut off from the net for a few days, so things may appear to go a bit slowly at times. I will do what I can. Cheers, • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I believe the saying is "Feast or famine", nothing for months and now all at once. No worries I will work with you on the timing etc. we'll get it figured out.
MPJ-US21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Okay let's start with the obvious - the GA Toolbox resources
This is not entirely consistent with MoS, which as far as I understand it, only requires no-break spaces when the unit is an abbreviation. I left a massage about this on the peer review talk page, but apparently there is no-one available to fix it. I will ensure that all abbreviated units get a no-break space. Cheers, • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The tool calls out "Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either
American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article." Please let me know which version is the correct intended version so I can highlght any issues with this
Per
WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per
Wikipedia:Summary style
In the bulleted time line, choose either present tense (e.g. "Thalmann extends use of E-L model"), past tense ("Dr. Andrew Smith first used the terms"), or noun construction ("Introduction of recompression tables") and stick with one throughout.
Should be fsw, and it stands for feet of seawater, a unit of pressure common in diving, but seldom used anywhere else. Decompression chamber internal pressure gauges and pneumofathometers (depth gauges for surface supplied divers which use an open ended tube full of air to measure the diver's depth) are usually calibrated in fsw and msw (metres of seawater). Not actually a depth, so not appropriate in that specific context. I have changed them to ft as the text refers to depth, not pressure. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I am really impressed with the amount of work you've already put in this. Side note the subscription inclusion is actually super easy. Just add "subscription = yes|" in the cite template and that's all. Keep up the good work it's close to GA status.
MPJ-US03:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Fortunately I retain some memory of where to find most of the content. Most of the work has been finding the right page. Some of those references are long and not what you would call "light reading". Even worse, some take about 10 minutes to download. Most of the easy ones are done, I may have to do a bit more heavy searching for some of the remainder. Nevertheless I remain confident that it is all possible. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
07:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Subscription worked fine, but I had to create the template first, and the ref had a DOI template which caused a few worries. However I just guessed some shortcuts and it worked. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
09:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, I have completed everything so far except the one citation for the first NAUI tables. I am waiting for a response from NAUI to see if they can point me to something, but I have inside information that not much from that era was recorded. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
wow you have been a tornado of activities. It is looking great right now, i will check it over tonight and see what is left. If the section without a source is l then we'll see what we.can figure out for that.
MPJ-US20:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I am generally satisfied with the updates, we just have one issue left. If you rephrase the statement as simply "The first NAUI tables were issued in the early 1980s.", then find a source on the publication date then you can always add it what they're based on if you ever get the source? Just a suggestion since it's probably easier to find the publication date and you don't have unsourced content in it. Oh and first time NAUI is used please expand the abbreviation. Just putting the article on hold while you decide on how to address the final issue.
MPJ-US11:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, the date is just as unciteable as the tables' origins. I cannot find a reference for the date either, other than the fairly obvious inference that it was before the second version. The easiest solution is to just remove the statement directly referring to the earliest tables, and just imply them by referring to the second issue, which is referenced in Huggins 1992.
Besides that, are you satisfied that the article is accessible to a reasonably intelligent and literate layperson, which I am assuming you to be in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Please point out any areas which could or should be clarified. If there are significant sections which appear to assume an unrealistic prerequisite background, I would like to know which they are, so I can work on them. Cheers, • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
15:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Does the table itself have like a copyright date or anything? if not then yeah by listing the second version it is clear that there was a first version at some point before. I will read through the article once more, checking to see if there are sufficient links for anything that may be unclear to me. The article does not have to explain everything to me but give me the ability to dig deeper if I am unfamiliar and would like to know more. So I will do a final read through with that specifically in mind.
MPJ-US15:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I have just found a reference while searching for Nu-Way tables. Go figure...
I don't know where to get a copy of the original tables to check for copyright. I have not seen them for over 20 years. They are printed on a plastic card, not the sort of thing found in a library. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
07:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
FIrst time the abbreviation DCS is used (timeline, 1847) it should be spelled out, then it can be abbreviated.
The only thing I could find is Nu-Way tables for sale. I don't know if they produce anything else, or even if they are still selling the same tables. There seem to be several companies called Nu-Way or similar, none of which look very likely as suppliers of diving equipment. No Wikilinks appear to be available. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Reading through the article I get a sense of everything or a link where I am lost, except the few items above. Yes it's a scientific article and it's using scienc jargon but that cannot be helped, there is a certain level that's expected and I think you generally strike that balance well.
MPJ-US15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
It was very interesting, I had only a passing knowledge of this - mainly what you see on film and stuff. So based on the latest updates I am satisfied that this now hits all the criteria for a Good Article. Congratulations I am going to promote this to Good Article status.
MPJ-US12:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
History of decompression research and development. 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.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve
Underwater diving-related articles to a
feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
The content of this article was split from the excessively large B-class article
Decompression (diving). There was no immediately obvious reason why it should not retain B-class rating as the split section was reasonably complete at the time and suitable for a stand-alone article. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
14:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Lede intro sect too long
Per
WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should be max four (4) paragraphs.
Sorry this has waited so long for a GA review. I'm not up to it right now but I do have a couple quick suggestions:
In the bulleted time line, choose either present tense (e.g. "Thalmann extends use of E-L model"), past tense ("Dr. Andrew Smith first used the terms"), or noun construction ("Introduction of recompression tables") and stick with one throughout.
Define uncommon terms inline (e.g. "supersaturation") or at least link to articles on them.
Rephrase: "A large number of decompression experiments were performed" it should be a large number was but that sounds weird.
I am about to start reviewing this article. Disclaimer, I am part of the GA cup and I know next to nothing about decompression other than it involves people getting wet ;-) but that also allows me to take an outsider's view of the article to ensure it's a Good Article for all audiences, not just those that already know a lot about the subject.
MPJ-US12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for taking this on, however after about 4 months of waiting, I now have 3 articles simultaneously in GA review, and a business trip next week where I may be cut off from the net for a few days, so things may appear to go a bit slowly at times. I will do what I can. Cheers, • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I believe the saying is "Feast or famine", nothing for months and now all at once. No worries I will work with you on the timing etc. we'll get it figured out.
MPJ-US21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Okay let's start with the obvious - the GA Toolbox resources
This is not entirely consistent with MoS, which as far as I understand it, only requires no-break spaces when the unit is an abbreviation. I left a massage about this on the peer review talk page, but apparently there is no-one available to fix it. I will ensure that all abbreviated units get a no-break space. Cheers, • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The tool calls out "Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either
American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article." Please let me know which version is the correct intended version so I can highlght any issues with this
Per
WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per
Wikipedia:Summary style
In the bulleted time line, choose either present tense (e.g. "Thalmann extends use of E-L model"), past tense ("Dr. Andrew Smith first used the terms"), or noun construction ("Introduction of recompression tables") and stick with one throughout.
Should be fsw, and it stands for feet of seawater, a unit of pressure common in diving, but seldom used anywhere else. Decompression chamber internal pressure gauges and pneumofathometers (depth gauges for surface supplied divers which use an open ended tube full of air to measure the diver's depth) are usually calibrated in fsw and msw (metres of seawater). Not actually a depth, so not appropriate in that specific context. I have changed them to ft as the text refers to depth, not pressure. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I am really impressed with the amount of work you've already put in this. Side note the subscription inclusion is actually super easy. Just add "subscription = yes|" in the cite template and that's all. Keep up the good work it's close to GA status.
MPJ-US03:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Fortunately I retain some memory of where to find most of the content. Most of the work has been finding the right page. Some of those references are long and not what you would call "light reading". Even worse, some take about 10 minutes to download. Most of the easy ones are done, I may have to do a bit more heavy searching for some of the remainder. Nevertheless I remain confident that it is all possible. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
07:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Subscription worked fine, but I had to create the template first, and the ref had a DOI template which caused a few worries. However I just guessed some shortcuts and it worked. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
09:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, I have completed everything so far except the one citation for the first NAUI tables. I am waiting for a response from NAUI to see if they can point me to something, but I have inside information that not much from that era was recorded. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
wow you have been a tornado of activities. It is looking great right now, i will check it over tonight and see what is left. If the section without a source is l then we'll see what we.can figure out for that.
MPJ-US20:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I am generally satisfied with the updates, we just have one issue left. If you rephrase the statement as simply "The first NAUI tables were issued in the early 1980s.", then find a source on the publication date then you can always add it what they're based on if you ever get the source? Just a suggestion since it's probably easier to find the publication date and you don't have unsourced content in it. Oh and first time NAUI is used please expand the abbreviation. Just putting the article on hold while you decide on how to address the final issue.
MPJ-US11:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, the date is just as unciteable as the tables' origins. I cannot find a reference for the date either, other than the fairly obvious inference that it was before the second version. The easiest solution is to just remove the statement directly referring to the earliest tables, and just imply them by referring to the second issue, which is referenced in Huggins 1992.
Besides that, are you satisfied that the article is accessible to a reasonably intelligent and literate layperson, which I am assuming you to be in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Please point out any areas which could or should be clarified. If there are significant sections which appear to assume an unrealistic prerequisite background, I would like to know which they are, so I can work on them. Cheers, • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
15:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Does the table itself have like a copyright date or anything? if not then yeah by listing the second version it is clear that there was a first version at some point before. I will read through the article once more, checking to see if there are sufficient links for anything that may be unclear to me. The article does not have to explain everything to me but give me the ability to dig deeper if I am unfamiliar and would like to know more. So I will do a final read through with that specifically in mind.
MPJ-US15:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I have just found a reference while searching for Nu-Way tables. Go figure...
I don't know where to get a copy of the original tables to check for copyright. I have not seen them for over 20 years. They are printed on a plastic card, not the sort of thing found in a library. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
07:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
FIrst time the abbreviation DCS is used (timeline, 1847) it should be spelled out, then it can be abbreviated.
The only thing I could find is Nu-Way tables for sale. I don't know if they produce anything else, or even if they are still selling the same tables. There seem to be several companies called Nu-Way or similar, none of which look very likely as suppliers of diving equipment. No Wikilinks appear to be available. • • •
Peter (Southwood)(talk):
08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Reading through the article I get a sense of everything or a link where I am lost, except the few items above. Yes it's a scientific article and it's using scienc jargon but that cannot be helped, there is a certain level that's expected and I think you generally strike that balance well.
MPJ-US15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
It was very interesting, I had only a passing knowledge of this - mainly what you see on film and stuff. So based on the latest updates I am satisfied that this now hits all the criteria for a Good Article. Congratulations I am going to promote this to Good Article status.
MPJ-US12:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
History of decompression research and development. 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.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.