Talk:Decompression theory/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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:


 * "The main variable in the study of decompression theory is pressure."
 * "In decompression theory the solubility of gases in liquids is of primary importance."
 * "In decompression theory the diffusion of gases, particularly when dissolved in liquids, is of primary importance.
 * "Tissues in which an inert gas is more soluble will eventually develop a higher dissolved gas content than tissues where the gas is less soluble."
 * "... and there is a theoretical possibility of bubble formation."
 * "As a consequence, the conditions for maximising the degree of unsaturation are a breathing gas with the lowest possible fraction of inert gas – i.e. pure oxygen, at the maximum permissible partial pressure."

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)

Some responses.
, Firstly, which criteria are you failing it on? Please refer to how it fails those criteria.
 * 2b (many unsourced claims) and 3b (too much detail). Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How many unsourced claims? I would have thought relatively few, and of those, mostly not contentious.
 * As for too much detail, I did not know that detail was a bad thing in an encyclopedia, particularly as I consider most of it necessary for reasonable understanding of the subject. Clearly you disagree, so could you specify which details are excessive, and why? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out that some of the statements I thought were sufficiently obvious to not require specific referencing are not so obvious after all. I will try to reduce their number, but as these look obvious to me I may still miss some. Shit happens. Some of the statements you pointed out above as needing citation summarise what I would have considered obvious conclusions that anyone reading the article would make for themselves once they had read the rest, assuming that they paid attention and understood the basic concepts. Perhaps I was wrong.
 * For example, the uncited statement and there is a theoretical possibility of bubble formation. following mention of supersaturation is what supersaturation actually means in the context. This is mentioned with a reference two subsections earlier. Anyway I have referenced it again.
 * "some of the statements I thought were sufficiently obvious to not require specific referencing are not so obvious after all." Obviousness is entirely too often in the eye of the beholder. See WP:NOTBLUE for an essay-length discussion of this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that in principle, that is why I put the article up for review, so that I could get feedback on what is not obvious. I have no objection to citing a claim that the sky is blue if someone asks for it, but do not intend to do so unless someone asks for it. Also NOTBLUE is an essay, not a GA criterion. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an essay, to be sure, but it's an excellent guide as to how and when to cite things. In short, err on the side of more often than not. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, all reasonably challengeable terminal sentences are now referenced. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have sorted out most of the rest as they were relatively trivial, Waiting on information requested from some of my contacts for the last couple of items.
 * The layout problem with the graph in saturation decompression comes as a slight surprise to me, it looks perfectly OK on my screen. I was unaware of the existence of wide image and will look into it. (looks useful, thanks for the tip)
 * I cannot find a requirement in the GA criteria for the article to display well on all platforms
 * That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I concede that it is a good idea, but not that it is admissible a quick failure condition. particularly when no solution is suggested &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that the GA criteria include appearance on a phone screen, and I don't use a phone for internet browsing as I can't read the screen. I will look into this.
 * I don't know what I should do about this. Are you suggesting that graphics that don't look good on a phone screen cannot be used in a GA? Something else? How should this problem be addressed?
 * GA criteria 1b includes compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, and within that section I commend WP:LAYM to your attention. No, it doesn't mention mobile screens (yet, anyway). But the general principles there will make an article that looks OK on a desktop or laptop not look too bad on a mobile. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I take it this refers to maximum width of 400px and maximum height of 500px? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have requested a copy of the source for the table of solubility. However it is the relative solubility that is important, and that does not actually have units - it is a dimensionless ratio. The actual units of solubility in water and lipids are irrelevant to the point, but I will try to get them in the interests of completeness. If I can't get then I will just delete those two columns.
 * The offending columns have been deleted as unnecessary detail. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will try to reduce the number of subsections.
 * The "Single sentence section" you refer to is the lead paragraph to several explanatory subsections that directly follow. Can you recommend a better way to handle this specific case?
 * Just so you know I'm doing this for policy reasons, see MOS:PARAGRAPHS: "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text" That's MOS, so it comes under GAC 1b. I would at least suggest including that in the section that follows. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be appropriate if the sentence applied only to the following subsection. When it applies to several subsections this becomes problematic, as hiding it in one subsection confuses the context. Minimising the number of single sentence paragraphs does not imply that they are not permitted at all, it is easy enough to specify that if it was the case. This implies that if a single sentence paragraph is the best way to present specific content, then it should be allowed. If you can suggest a specific way of presenting this content that is better than the current one, please do so, taking into account the actual case, and implications for the rest of the article. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now reduced the number and depth of subsections, and combined as many of the single sentence paragraphs as seems reasonable &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What do I do about it if the information is actually necessary to understand the subject? Who decides?

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.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)