Talk:Underwater diving

edit break
To expand on the above: consistency means that similar refs look similar to each other. That means you include the same information for each, in the same order and formatted similarly. References should also be (of course) accurate and complete.
 * FN1: think the publisher should be Stanley Paul
 * Typo fixed ✅


 * Sometimes you include access dates for web sources, other times not
 * Working on this. I Think I got them all. ✅


 * Your formatting for manuals is quite inconsistent
 * I am not sure what you mean. Does this refer to the shortened footnotes for NOAA and US Navy Diving Manuals? Should the sfns display in italics? Something else? I have made them display in italics, so maybe fixed ✅
 * Look at Sources. One has a location, the other doesn't; one has an access date, the other doesn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One is available on the internet, and has an access date. The other is not, so no access date is possible. I have tried to improve the locations of both.


 * FN6 needs page number
 * Done ✅


 * What kind of source is FN12?
 * Fixed ✅


 * FN13 doesn't match other chapter references
 * Fixed ✅


 * Be consistent in when/if you include publisher locations, and if you do how these are formatted
 * I have tried to fix consistency of formatting, not sure if when/if is satisfactory, as I don't know what rule to apply. Advice needed.
 * Any formatting of locations is fine if you're going to include locations - abbreviated state names, full state names, no state names, including country or not. Generally you should be more specific than "United States". You're still inconsistent in whether they're included at all, though - FN94 has one but 54 doesn't, FN5 has one but 6 doesn't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I got 6, somehow I missed that. For 54 it seems that WB Saunders is now owned by Elsevier, do I give the location for Elsevier? (Elsevier, Health Sciences Division, St. Louis MO ). What do I do if I can't find an address for a publisher?
 * I have added all the publishers and locations I have been able to find. All citations use CS1 templates, and I think I have found all the cases where the wrong template was used and corrected them. Is there anything else I need to do?


 * FN37: reprint info shouldn't be part of the publication name
 * Moved to outside the template as suggested in Help:Citation Style 1, Is this satisfactory?


 * Be consistent in how editions are notated
 * Fixed, I think. ✅


 * FN43: date format doesn't match
 * Fixed ✅


 * What makes FN48 a high-quality reliable source?
 * More importantly, even, it does not support the preceding paragraph, so I have removed it as irrelevant. However it does have some good information and images and I did not see any noticeable errors or distortion of fact in the parts I read, so it may well be as reliable as any other unreviewed source. It may have been more relevant to the article from which the section was condensed. Fixed ✅


 * Things that aren't publication titles shouldn't be italicized
 * Working on it. Partly fixed, but hindered by not being sure of what all is classed as a publication. I think I have sorted this out, please check ✅


 * FN51 has too much italicization
 * Fixed formatting. ✅


 * Pages for FN54?
 * Historical Diving Times is paywalled. I don't have access. Can't fix


 * Since Xlibris is a self-publisher, what makes FN56 reliable?
 * I managed to see part of it on Google books and am not impressed. It is not well written. I did not see any obvious errors, but it is not necessary. There are other references for the relevant paragraph. I will delete this ref and check whether the others support the content sufficiently. Fixed ✅


 * FN62: author formatting doesn't match other references
 * Fixed. Used alternative parameters. ✅


 * Fn77 is incomplete, as is FN80, as is FN81, check for others
 * Fixed FN80, 70 is in French and I have asked for help, (Fixed by RexxS) 81 uses an archived site on wayback and I don't yet know how to deal with this. Working on it. I think it is fixed now ✅
 * Found the relevant page on the revised Comex site and checked that it verifies the info. Have updated the ref so we don't need the archived version. --RexxS (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.


 * FN86 doesn't match other web references, neither does FN127, check for others
 * I think I have fixed these. ✅

Generally quite a bit of work to do around consistency yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will look into these. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have done what I can. There are a couple of items I do not understand, and some where I have deduced or guessed what was needed which may be mistaken. Please advise. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have done more cleanup of references and if you have any further comments they will be welcome. I have learned a fair amount from this exercise, though I am still far from expert, and am applying these new skills to other articles to keep in practice. I understand you also comment on images for FA, so would welcome your comments about them here. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly much improved, but I still have concerns about consistency. Just to reiterate: it's not necessary for all references to have exactly the same components (for example, just because you decide books should include locations, doesn't mean websites automatically must do so); however, decisions made about one type of reference should apply to all. So I see FNs 54 and 55 are both books but only one has a location, for example. The magazine in FN25 includes location, the one in FN37 doesn't. FN82 repeats the publisher as the website name, FN36 doesn't (it isn't necessary to do so, so a decision should be made about which one to do consistently). FNs 89, 132, and 134 each uses a different style for publication date - again, any of those would be acceptable if consistently applied. And so on. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Location
The location (of the publisher) parameter only really makes sense for a printed source. The point is that a book may be published originally in London, but may subsequently be published in New York. Sometimes there are differences in the pagination and it can be important to know which version was used as a source for our article text. There's no corresponding use for 'location' in an online source. For example, I can tell you that scubaengineer.com is hosted on servers which are most likely in Houston, Texas, but the person who owns the domain ("publisher"?) lives in Banglamung, Thailand. That's not of any use to our readers, so there really is no point in including location for an online-only source. Does that help you in deciding whether to include the parameter or not for each reference? --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense and is a pattern that can be followed. It is the requirement for consistency that I am having trouble with. The scope of the consistency is undefined. If it is considered consistent to give a location for printed material, but not for web, that is fine except I don't have access to all the printed material, and some of it may not mention a location. Then there is the matter of printed material accessed from electronic copies. I think that should be treated like print, but sometimes there is no location specified. The easiest way to be consistent is to leave it all out, but that may delete useful information, and my own leanings are towards usefulness rather than consistency for its own sake. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What about journals, reports, magazines, regulations and standards. As a general rule there will be only one version printed, or if more than one they will be clearly distinguished The location of the publisher is usually available, but is it useful,and should it be included? What constitutes consistency? Is this actually explained anywhere in WP? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that publisher location is rarely useful, and so I don't generally include it - but it is permissible to do so if done for all references of the same type, eg. for all books, and/or all journals, etc. For books this information is generally available online via WorldCat or other sources.
 * More broadly: there are two basic requirements for citations. They should be complete enough to fully identify the source used, and in the case of a large source the specific part of the source used (eg. page number), for the purposes of verifiability. CITEHOW outlines what is or isn't required by source type, and includes a few notes about formatting - eg. that book titles should be italicized.
 * The second basic requirement is consistency, and you're correct, that isn't well-defined. But there are a few things we can say. First, everything at CITEHOW that is said to be optional, you should either include or not include for all sources of that type - eg. location for books. We can also look at CITESTYLE, which indicates that a single overall "style guide" should be followed for citation formatting. That does not mean that all your references must be in APA or MLA, for example, but the implication is that if you use cite web you should also use cite book, etc. The analogy is that books and articles are not formatted identically in APA/MLA/the cite family of templates, but are still considered "consistent". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been striving for consistency in the use of cs1 templates. What I have found is a recursive collection of canned worms. There do not appear to be cs1 templates for laws, regulations and standards, and as I don't know how these types of source are supposed to display, I don't know how to kludge it consistently. The help pages are generally unhelpful and I don't know enough to fix them. Anyway, thanks for your advice and comments. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Images

 * Check MOS issues in captions - "16th-century" should be an adjective, 'Lusitania should be italicized
 * Done ✅


 * File:Alexander_the_Great_diving_NOAA.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * Done ✅


 * File:John_Scott_Haldane_1910.jpg: source link is dead. We need to know (a) when/where was this first published, (b) what steps have been taken to try to ascertain the author, and (c) what is the status of the image in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea of how to go about this. Please suggest a way forward. I can delete the image, but would prefer not to as Haldane was the most influential researcher in the field. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The key here is, what is the earliest known publication of the image? That will tell us which of the UK rationales apply, what US rationales we could potentially apply, and will give a lead on whether the author has ever been identified. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Diving hazards
Can this be converted from bullets to narrative. Nice work overall. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably. I will have to work out how best to do it. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been converted. The amount of blue bothers me slightly, and I may come back to tinker with it. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your work in improving the flow of the article. There are a few of your edits which were not clear in their motivation, perhaps you would elaborate.
 * You deleted this as "trite". Maybe so, but there have been a significant number of deaths directly ascribed to lack of appropriate equipment and the competence necessary to effectively use it, particularly in cave and wreck diving. Is it the presence of the information, or the lack of context that you consider undesirable? (or something else?)
 * You deleted the whole section on terminology with the comment "trim". Could you be more specific in why it was an improvement to remove it?
 * You changed the header of the subsection Human factors in diving safety, to Diving safety, which is less accurate as a description of the subsection, which is exclusively about human factors. The containing section, Risk and safety is about generic aspects of diving safety. If you just want a shorter header, perhaps just "Human factors" would be better, as diving safety is implied by the higher level heading?
 * I have changed the header to Human factors as proposed above. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An explanation of the legal status of Scientific diving was removed as "confused". Was it removed because it did not provide relevant information in terms of the scope of the subject, or because it should be clarified. If the latter, would a clarify tag not serve the purpose better?
 * The paragraph on the range of competitive sporting activities was deleted as unnecessary. Why is it unnecessary to mention them?
 * You deleted the section Diving by other animals without any explanation. I am not particularly attached to the section, but someone thought it was worth including, so perhaps you would give your rationale for their benefit.
 * In your edit here, you request clarification of a statement which you deleted. Why delete if you want it clarified? Most of the following text was intended to clarify that statement, but perhaps the depth of the sea should be explained to give it all context. I will do this, so please check to see if clarification has been successful. Also, why qualify maximum recreational depth for humans? While entirely true, what else would be diving for recreation that might lead to confusion?
 * Thanks for the positive comment on your enjoyment of the article. and thanks for taking the time to contribute.
 * There were a couple of other small items that I reverted, giving my reasons. If you disagree, please discuss. There may be other ways to make those points which are better. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Peter; overall you need to re-orientate the article towards a general reader. The sections I deleted were interminable to laymen. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought they were rather concise, even terse, but opinions differ, and you represent the view of the layman here so I will defer to your judgement unless someone else disagrees. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I was a bit rampant in my initial editing, but to be clear, I found the article highly enjoyable to read, and a credit to those involved. I am absolutely fine with the reverts and from here will suggest and discuss rather than delete. Ceoil (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Decompression chamber picture
Hi, this image is somewhat ambiguous. What is the person "giving thumbs up" trying to say? See Diver_communications. Should we maybe take this picture out of the article because of the ambiguity? --Gnom (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to assume he's indicating that he's prepared and "good to go", in much the same way that most people would indicate that with a hand gesture. The original article (archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20061122151509/http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=41011 ) seems to confirm this. Remember he's just a trainee and may not necessarily even be a qualified diver at that point. The fact that divers have a different meaning for the thumbs-up when used underwater isn't likely to confuse the general reader, as far as I can see. --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. It confused me a lot. If the gesture means "I am good to go", then the picture has not much value for the article, because decompression chambers are not usually used by people who are "good". --Gnom (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , The picture is intended to illustrate a decompression chamber as one of the more iconic aspects of diving medicine. It gives a good impression of the interior of a typical chamber. I did not consider that the specific occasion and communications at the time were relevant. If you read the file description at Commons you will see the background for this specific photo, but I do not think the circumstances invalidate the use in the article. If you have a recommendation for a specific image on Commons that will illustrate the article section better than this one, feel free to link and explain why you think it is better. An image of a chamber showing it in use to treat a diving condition could be better as long as that is fairly apparent from the image. Improvements are always welcome.
 * Actually decompression chambers are often used by people who are "good", for several reasons, which are quite well explained in several Wikipedia articles. These include training, decompression from bell bounce dives, and surface decompression, although there are some who would quibble on the definition for "good" in that particular case. Chamber medical treatment is usually for people who are "not so good", which is why this image is not ideal for the section on diving medicine.
 * If you can't find the relevant articles from links from this article, let me know, and I will attempt to make them more easily navigable. (hint: the navboxes may be useful). Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible alternatives: I don't see any of these as a real improvement, but interested to hear other opinions and see more onptions


 * I've made a new caption for the image which I think better reflects what is happening in the photograph: "Military divers are trained in the procedures for use of a recompression chamber to treat diving disorders." I think it's a point worth making, and isn't just a duplicate of what's already in the text. I've always argued that images need to make a point, otherwise they become mere decoration. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle I am OK with that, but its not only military divers who get that training, it is standard training for commercial divers too, possibly most professional divers.I will make that "military and commercial divers" &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle I am OK with that, but its not only military divers who get that training, it is standard training for commercial divers too, possibly most professional divers.I will make that "military and commercial divers" &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A few small points
... arising from a quick examination of the results of my ETVP script (which I ran in response to Peter's invitation).


 * 1) If HTML comments are used to comment-out templates in LDR, I strongly recommend placing them around individual templates, and not placing more than one cite template within a single comment. The reason is to allow templates to be automatically sorted correctly. My script automatically sorts by refname, and you will see that a few have been re-ordered. Fortunately none of the commented-out templates were moved on this occasion, but the possibility exists for it to go wrong (inadvertently commenting out a huge swathe of templates).
 * 2)   is used once (inconsistency of citation style within the article)
 * 3) I'm not a fan of   or  . It adds very little info and clutters up the display for the reader. But using something like   is useful (and recommended) if it indicates that someone has reviewed the source and established that it doesn't state any author (instead of the common case where the author is stated, but has been missed by a poor cite-generating tool).
 * 4) You might wish to compare the LDR list with that at History of underwater diving, which shares some of the same sources, but slightly different details are given.

I hope you find the resulting LDR list a lot easier to check, review, and if necessary, edit. --NSH001 (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this reformatting, it looks very satisfactory. I will keep your recommendations in mind. I thought I had eliminated the vauthors, but looks like I missed one. Also will look at the staff cases. ✅
 * You are probably right about the refs at History of underwater diving. I tend to keep a record of my ref defs for re-use, but sometimes I don't update the master list, and often when I do, the earlier use cases don't get updated. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Shark suit
The image File:Neptunic shark suit 1.jpg has recently appeared in these articles: Shark suit, Chain mail, Diving suit, Underwater diving and Thumb signal. It certainly looks like spamming of a personal snapshot across multiple articles, some of which are only tangentially related to the topic of the image. I've reverted the last three for the following reasons: In the case of Shark suit, a barely notable stub, it is of course appropriate. I don't think it adds much to Chain mail, but I'll leave that for others to determine. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Its use in Thumb signal is positively misleading. Any diver is aware that the "thumbs-up" signal is an indication that the divers should begin to ascend.
 * In Diving suit and especially in Underwater diving, there are hundreds of images that could be used, and we have to be selective about which ones are most useful to the general audience. The use of a "shark suit" is so uncommon compared to the many other types of suit in use that I don't believe it is WP:DUE for either of these two articles.
 * Mostly agree. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Updates
There are quite a number of new articles in the scope of underwater diving created since the FA review. I plan to update the article so that it refers to some of those. Ecological impact, economic aspects and tourism come to mind. Any constructive suggestions welcome. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Demographics if I can find sources · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Economic aspects, including: Professional diving services in industry, public service and science, diving equipment manufacturing and marketing, recreational diving tourism industry.

Economic aspects
(courtesy ping ) A new section was started but the content was merged into another section, leaving coverage incomplete. Refer to this edit for the merge.

I see Scuba diving tourism not so much as a reason to dive, but a consequence of the desire to dive in a wider range of environments, and the lack of desirable dive sites in many areas. The resulting service industry is more an economic aspect of the activity, which is why it was put in a new section of that title with relevant information on the industry, and not in "Range of diving activities", where it may deserve mention, but only briefly, or it becomes undue weight for that section. The economic aspects are significant, and at some stage there should probably be an article on that topic. There are also economic aspects of professional diving as mentioned in the "expand" tag, which would logically be bundled in the same section. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review
This article no longer meets Featured article criteria. Paragraphs on recreational diving are duplicated and tourism is mentioned in two different sections, demonstrating that the article does not meet criterion 2b: appropriate structure. The final paragraph and one of the notes are not sourced, even though they contain weasel words and opinion. See comprehensiveness concerns from another editor in the section above. DrKay (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Finding that a featured article lacks information on a particular aspect is reason to expand the article if it is possible to find suitable sources. That is what is being done. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No weasel words or opinion found. Perhaps they have been fixed &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Have the above concerns been addressed? Does anything else need to happen for it to be removed from WP:FARGIVEN? Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph is tagged for citation needed and Note a is not cited. I still feel that the Physiological constraints and Medical aspects sections cover much the same topic as do the Range of activities and Economic aspects sections. Per MOS:HEAD, sub-headings should not refer redundantly back to the article topic. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * if no one steps up to fix this article, would you be willing to bring this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am willing to fix issues which are sufficiently defined to be actionable, and which I consider need to be fixed. I will look into this later today. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note (a) was referenced at the time of the original FAC review. It is still referenced. I have moved the tag to the end of the paragraph because the source supports the whole paragraph. Perhaps standards have changed? It should not be a problem to find more sources as we have articles covering those concepts, and they are well known in occupational health and safety. How many do we need, or alternatively, which part of the paragraph appears not to be supported by the source? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The uncited statement from the last paragraph has been removed as I could not find any sources to support it. Verifiability, not truth. Perhaps some day someone will publish an environmental policy discussion that includes public safety and police diving, or I will choose a better search string and find something that has been there all along.
 * Regarding section headings, As far as I know the section headings are the same ones that were accepted at FAC, so I see no urgent reason to change them. I will check. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have checked the article version that was awarded the star Section headers have not changed except where new sections were added, so unless the rules have changed since then, the headers are accepted by consensus as they stand. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am willing to consider and discuss adequately motivated specific proposals for alternative section headers. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The same situation applies to Physiological constraints and Medical aspects, the first refers to the effects of environmental conditions which could affect everyone who dives, the second refers to screening, injuries, and treatment of injuries. Both were accepted by the group of people involved at the FAC. Also I do not agree with DrKay on this point, nor on the matter of Range of activities and Economic aspects being too overlapped to justify separate sections. I have explained my position on that point earlier on this page. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * for comment. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the previous conversation earlier on this page yesterday, but I have only skimmed the article so I don't really have an opinion on section headings or what should and should not be in the article. When the other concerns are addressed, please ping me and I will try to do a deep reading of the text.

While I am busy with that, perhaps you would consider how the referencing on this article would have to be changed to comply with whatever it is that you think it must be. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 04:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the citations, the FAC/FAR process has changed their expectations for citations, where all citations should be at the end of the information that they are verifying instead of the middle of the sentence. I see that you moved some of the citations, which helps resolve this concern. The article should have a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum. For your question about finding more sources, the most high-quality sources should be used for featured articles, replacing lower-quality ones. I think this essay explains what sources FAs are looking for. A separate concern I have is that the sources are a little disorganised, where there are three sources listed in a "Sources" section, and it is unclear why these three are separated from the rest of the inline citations. Either all the sources of the same media type should be listed in a separate sources section (like all books and journal articles) or none of them should be listed. When you are finished with your changes, please ping me and I will conduct a detailed read of the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources in the "Sources" section are those which are frequently referenced, using short form references, to a wide range of pages, sections, or chapters in the source document, to avoid the wall of text resulting from repeating the same citation many times – Once for each page, section or chapter. Clicking on the short form reference in the References section should take you to the source in the Sources section. If any of them do not, let me know and I will try to fix them. They all used to work that way. This was discussed at length during the FAC, and it was shown that this system has been used in a significant number of FAs previous to this one, and that at the time, this was a legitimate citation format, compliant with MoS, and acceptable for FA. I am aware that not everyone is familiar with every citation style, and it is not necessary that they should be. This is one that I prefer to use. If the rules have changed, disallowing this style of referencing, please provide a link to the discussion where this was decided.
 * I am familiar with the concept that one good reference is better than any number of poor references, and it is one with which I am in complete agreement. The problem arises when more than one reference is needed to establish a statement, because it is made up of more than one part. Also there can be issues where one uses a reference because one is aware of it and has access to it, and it appears to be good enough, whereas a better reference may exist, but is not accessible, or one does not know that it exists, making it hard to search for. We are to a large extent limited to what is available to us at the time. Good enough should be recognised for what it is, and a demand for perfection can be an insurmountable barrier to getting the job done. Improvements can be made later, as and when further information becomes available from previously unavailable sources, or better sources are found, which is what I have done and will continue to do with this article.
 * I do not understand what you mean by all citations should be at the end of the information that they are verifying instead of the middle of the sentence. My understanding of citation positioning is that they should be placed after punctuation, after the information they verify, and may optionally be grouped at the end of the paragraph, though that has been known to cause problems in identifying which reference applies to which claim. If this has changed, or if there is a special rule for FA that has been created since this article passed, I would appreciate a link to the definitive ruling.
 * Where is Either all the sources of the same media type should be listed in a separate sources section (like all books and journal articles) or none of them should be listed. stipulated in MoS or FA criteria?
 * I think I have addressed all the issues that have been described sufficiently clearly to be actionable, and that I consider to be necessary to fix. Where I do not consider action necessary, I have stated my position and reasons. I await further clear actionable input from others. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You may find it worth taking a look at the FAC discussion. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with various citation styles, and used shortended inline citation footnotes in an article that I wrote (William Lyon Mackenzie). The concern is there are only three sources that use this shortened form. MOS:NOTES says "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." This has been interpreted at FAC as meaning that editors can use a citation style they want for each type of media, but similar types of media should be cited in the same way. This is an expectation for FACs that are nominated in 2022, so that is the standard that I apply when reviewing older articles. Sometimes things that are legitimate in 2007 are not considered as meeting FA standards in 2022.
 * When I say that all citations should be at the end of the information they are verifying, what I mean is that a citation should not be placed in the middle of the sentence if that citation is to verify all the information in that sentence. Instead, the citation belongs where you state above, at the end of the sentence after the punctuation. In the version I was reviewing a couple days ago, there were some sentences at the end of paragraphs that were missing citations. It seems like you fixed all of these, which I am thankful for. Let me know when you are ready for me to take a deep read of this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , OK, I get the point on positioning of citations in the text – I think. Anyway I don't see it as a major obstacle to anything. I will have another look, and if you find any others let me know, and I will check whether another citation is needed for whatever is beyond the citation's current position.
 * Please take a look at the item number 6 in the FA discussion. The point about short form is raised there, I did a sample inspection and found that while relatively uncommon, this was an accepted style at the time in spite of others apparently sharing your interpretation of the rules. If the current standards are different, the changes should be recorded somewhere. If you decide to relegate the article based on that interpretation, I will put it to a broad RfC to clarify whether this is based on a consensus interpretation, so that we can be clear on the rules and what they actually mean, as your interpretation would necessarily imply at least ten relegations for that reason alone. I do not particularly care what the rule is, as long as it is entirely clear what it means, is accepted by the community, and it is applied even-handedly. It would be interesting to see whether FAC interpretations constitute sufficient consensus to override general consensus of the wider community. If it can be shown that this is a real and recorded policy, I will cheerfully modify the references according to the written requirements.
 * I am ready for you to take a deep read, but cannot guarantee that nobody will come up with something else while you are busy. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind if you set up an RfC. Another option is to do an informal discussion on WT:FAC on if what I am asking is part of WP:FA? and the MOS. I'll leave that up to you, and if we go the RfC route can you post a notice of that discussion on WT:FAC so that other FA writers will be able to follow the discussion? We would probably want to sort this out before I did a deep read: typically when I deep read, I will fix small things as I go and I can check the citation formatting while I read. Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , Good suggestion, I will let you know first if I set up an RfC in case you have useful input on the setup of the question.
 * , I asked and got a clear answer. The style is acceptable. I think you can safely proceed with your deep read. I look forward to constructive feedback, so please let me know if anything does not immediately make sense. Cheers &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 14:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * noting here that I'm getting additional clarification, so I'll get that information then I'll proceed with looking at this. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , No problem, no rush. Ping me when it is happening. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion refers. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added this to my wiki to-do list. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Image removed
, I removed the image of a scuba diver that you added from the section on physiological constraints on diving, as I could not see how it added value to the section topic. If you believe that the image would improve that section, you are invited to explain the value and relevance here before replacing the image. Alternatively, you can explain what you consider valuable about the image in more general terms, and we can consider whether it might be useful in another article. Please ping me with your reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Underwater torches
I just created the stub magnesium torch, and while I remember these clearly from watching Jacques Cousteau and Sea Hunt on television in the 1970s (they were reruns from the 1950s and 1960s) I am finding it extremely difficult to locate any information on them. Searches for "magnesium torch" or "underwater torch" are futile due to the British use of the word "torch" to mean "flashlight" or "lamp", returning results for electric flashlights with magnesium cases. I did find a youtube video featuring them briefly, but not much else.

I was hoping someone here with a longer memory and more expertise might point the way to better sourcing. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ (partly - still room for improvement), &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)