Talk:Underwater diving/GA1

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

Reviewer: Atsme (talk · contribs) 16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
1a(1) The first sentence in the lead should be more concise. For example: Underwater diving is the practice of descending below the water's surface to conduct underwater activities, typically for sport, recreation, commercial, military or science and research purposes.
 * The typical reasons are mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead in slightly more detail, making this a bit redundant. In the interests of keeping the lead concise, I prefer to only mention them in one lead paragraph, but this could be the first if you think it would be better.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

1a(2) The diver may be is exposed to the ambient pressure when underwater and may use breathing apparatus such as that used for scuba diving and or surface supplied diving, or when freediving, will breath-hold for the duration of the dive. in free diving.
 * Not all diving is at ambient pressure, as mentioned later in the paragraph. Unless one intends to exclude diving in armoured suit at atmospheric pressure, the diver is not always exposed to ambient pressure during a dive. I have made this more explicit and improved the description of freediving as suggested.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

1a(3) Diving activities are restricted to relatively shallow depths - relative to what? Needs perspective for non-diving readers, such as the range of depth considered "shallow".
 * Added "compared to depth of the sea", Difficult to concisely explain what is shallow, as it varies depending on the equipment, as discussed in a later section. A one-liner is more likely to confuse than clarify. Do you have any suggestions? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Something along the line of: Diving activities are restricted to relatively shallow depths ranging from around 40m (130 ft.) maximum for recreational Scuba diving to commercial deep diving maximum around 365.76m (1200 ft.) wearing atmospheric diving suits. Atsme 📞📧 10:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done something like that based on the values in the depth section. Let me know if it is satisfactory. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

1a(4) Don't use two conjunctions together: it can be and though or although but not "and although".
 * Fixed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

1a(5) ...including the standard copper helmet, and other forms of free-flow helmet and lightweight demand helmets. Suggestion: and various forms of free-flow and lightweight demand helmets.
 * I am not sure of what you mean here. Standard copper helmets are a class of free-flow helmet, though there were also rebreather copper helmets (Draeger, for example made copper helmets which were a type of semi-closed circuit scuba), and a some demand copper helmets using the Denayrouze regulator. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mixing plural and singular - and other forms of free-flow helmet and lightweight demand helmets. Should be free-flow helmets. Atsme 📞📧 10:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, got it, and done. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

1a(6) Done &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

1a Body:
 * Diving modes
 * Scuba diving section edited as requested. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) [[User talk:Pbsouthwood| (talk)

]]: 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Surface supplied diving section edited similarly.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like that edit was lost, I will have to do it again.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reconstituted edits as well as I can remember. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Reasons for diving
 * I agree it does not flow well and should be improved, but the point is also that while mainstream commercial diving is regulated by legislation in many countries, recreational diver training, and dive leading are industry regulated in some of those countries, and only directly regulated by government in a subset of them. Unfortunately I don't have an exhaustive list of diving legislation, but the UK is one country where HSE legislation specifically includes recreational diver training and dive leading for reward, while the US and South Africa are examples where industry regulation is accepted, though non-specific HSE legislation would still apply. I will try to improve the flow while retaining the distinction.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made the second change as recommended, and am now wondering whether the legislatory aspect should be somewhere else, possibly in a different section, as it is not really a reason for diving. Perhaps in the Risks and safety section? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)✅
 * I decided it would fit better in Risks and safety and have made a new section for it there. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)✅
 * History
 * Changed more or less as suggested and added a bit of context with reference. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Diving suits
 * Removed unnecessary text and made small correction. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Conversions
 * The monetary conversion troubles me. How should sterling from 1687 be converted to $(US), and which other currencies should be represented?
 * I think I found all the other missing conversions, Please let me know if I missed any. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See for the conversion Atsme 📞📧 00:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The conversion app does not work for contemporary (1687) dollar values, possibly because the US dollar did not exist at the time. The £200 000 was probably a historical evaluation, and converting to a current value in another currency is likely to cause confusion unless explained. Since the actual value in any currency is not of core importance to the mention, I don't see how giving a 2016 US dollar value to a 1687 sterling estimate is useful to the reader, and it will also go out of date as the exchange rate varies. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, so what is needed is a bit more info & clarity to maintain encyclopedic accuracy and avoid sounding purely anecdotal. Suggestion: In late 1686, Sir William Phipps convinced investors to fund an expedition to what is now Haiti and the Dominican Republic to find sunken treasure, despite the location of the shipwreck being based entirely on rumor and speculation.  In January 1687, Phipps found the shipwreck off the coast of Santo Domingo.  Some sources say they used an inverted container for the salvage operation while others say the crew was assisted by Indian divers in the shallow waters.  The operation lasted from February to April 1687 during which time they salvaged jewels, some gold and 30 tons of silver which, at the time, was worth over £200,000.  Also see this source which is available online and supports the information. Atsme 📞📧 16:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I like it, and will probably use it pretty much as you wrote it. &bull; &bull; &bull;
 * On further consideration, is this extra information all that relevant for this article? If we are trying to trim the summaries down to a minimum, and this use of a bell is uncertain, should it not be better to omit it entirely? (I have used the information and reference in the history section of the Diving bell article, so it is not wasted.) &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree it's more detail than summary which you've addressed by moving it to the main article. Atsme 📞📧 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Development of salvage diving operations
 * Duplications deleted, and text condensed a bit.
 * Rewrote paragraph in the hope of making the relevance of the scientific report on the barotrauma incident more clear.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Self-contained air supply equipment
 * The earlier sub-section "Scuba diving" in the section "Diving modes" describes the equipment in that context. The sub-section "Self-contained air supply equipment" in the "History" section describes the history of the development of scuba. There is very little, if any, repeated content. Also the link should have been to a section, which I have corrected. That said, I also don't really like the repetition of similar section headers, but have not come up with a satisfactory alternative. I will prune down the subsection to a less detailed summary.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed links from main to history sections The listed section has also been trimmed somewhat. Let me know if you think more is needed, or some other approach might be better. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have a main article on this topic. Merge Self-contained air supply equipment with Scuba diving and condense.   Atsme 📞📧 17:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Saturation diving
 * Changed link from main to history section. Not much there at present, but that could change, and it will be the appropriate link. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Same thing here - the information in Saturation diving needs to be merged and condensed into the section Surface supplied diving where Saturation diving is first mentioned in the bullet points. In other words, when we have a standalone article on the topic, all we need in this article are overviews or summaries without redundant details.
 * Atmospheric diving suits
 * Changed link from main to history section, where there is quite a lot more detail. I am considering trimming this section a bit more. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Atmospheric diving suits with the section Atmospheric pressure diving and condense since there is already a main article about the topic.


 * Trimmed to the bones. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is still far too much detailed information as I noted above. Verbosity is not reader friendly, especially when we have standalone articles that provide the same information.  Use wikilinks, condense & merge per WP:Summary_style.  I love to read about diving but this article is too long because it is not staying focused, and will be a far better read (and read more often) if tightened.  See WP:Good_article_criteria #3b, also WP:Article size and WP:Summary_style.  Please don't get discouraged, we're almost there, and what we're doing now will save you a ton of work when you nominate it for FA promotion. Atsme 📞📧 17:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, It looks like instead of having some information about the history of each of the modes in the history section, you want me to put less information about the history of the modes into the modes subsections along with the technical explanations about the modes, leaving a heavily cut down history section? I see it as a perfectly acceptable alternative, just did not quite get what you were asking for. Either way is a compromise, and that way may be a more compact compromise. Please confirm whether I understand you correctly, but I will probably go ahead and do it anyway. Improving the article is what this is about. Getting constructive criticism is welcome. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am trying to get my head around what we are trying to achieve and how best to get there. I think we agree that trimming the history section would be an improvement, but not necessarily on how best to do it. To trim it, some content must be omitted. Whether this removed content should be transferred to other sections is another issue. Doing so does not shorten the article. "Readable text" size is 45kB/7158 words, which is generally acceptable, but there are a lot more words in lists and tables. One of those, the table of reasons to dive, is quite big, and might be too much detail for the article. Perhaps it should be split off into a List of underwater activities? (If it would qualify as sufficiently notable, which I think should be the case as can be seen by the number of references already in the table. It could be expanded if split off in this way.) Another thing that might be worthwhile is creating/splitting off a main article on the History of underwater diving, in which case the history section could be condensed into one level 2 section without subsections. There is already a list Timeline of diving technology. This could handily reduce article size to allow for possible additional sections if required to be more comprehensive for FA. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the perfect plan to me. Atsme 📞📧 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

2b Footnotes 11 & 19 are dead links.
 * Yes, I tagged them. The statement referenced by footnote 19 is also referenced by footnote 20, so that should not be a problem. the reference in footnote 11 is more of a problem. I tried googling it but no luck. The paragraph supported by that reference is uncontroversial. The only statement that is not fairly obvious is the depth mentioned. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a new ref for the ADS and for the depth record, so that is also fixed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you need to fix the dead link. Since two sources were cited and the live one supports what was stated, why not just delete the dead link as one of the cited sources? Atsme 📞📧 23:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainly because of the guidance in WP:LR which states Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.. I don't know which source is better, as I can't see one of them. My interpretation of WP:LR is that a dead link does not negate the validity of a source - if there was no link in the first place the source would probably never be questioned. Is there other MOS that overrides this? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you want the article promoted to GA. See Citing_sources #5 and also WP:GACR. If you don't think the one good source that was cited supports the information, then find another source that does and replace  the dead link.  Atsme 📞📧 11:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dead links commented out. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)✅

PS - I found the following link that may work to support the statement. You may be able to find something better. Use your good judgement. 12:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * interesting paper, I will read through and see what I can use. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting and potentially useful, as it is well referenced and knowing that a reference exists is half of the work done. It is good for the purpose suggested and I will add it there. Thanks, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

- be sure to check in the GA review box above which is where I'm adding new review comments. Have a great weekend. I'll be traveling most of tomorrow, and getting setup in a new location on Sunday. I'll be checking in from time to time when I have access. Atsme 📞📧 00:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will also be away part of the weekend. Getting some survey dives in. I am watching the review box. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)✅

Suggestion for fairly big change
The table in Underwater diving is quite big and I now think unnecessarily detailed for a summary style section. I propose splitting it out to a new article. Possibly Classification of underwater activities, to be a list of underwater activities classified by occupational field and the diving modes usually associated with them. I am also going to start a new article History of underwater diving some time soon, as there is plenty of scope and no problem with notability. Should this affect how we deal with the history section here, or do we deal with them in isolation? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to condense the information into an overview if a main article exists. The entire section about the History of underwater diving could be condensed into one or two paragraphs - like the way Hawking's A Brief History of Time condensed the infinity of the universe into 224 pgs - you can do it! SMirC-grin.svg  You might want to use your sandbox to save some of the information for the new articles you intend to create.  Example of condensing :
 * Highlighted advancements written in prose with wikilinks to the respective main articles. Voila, a brief history of underwater diving.  You can also add a sentence or two about the history of each Diving mode, like when it was invented, for what purpose, if it's still in use or was replaced and if the latter, with what.  That will eliminate the lengthy History section considerably.  What you keep will be condensed to a few paragraphs and merged into the relevant section, or bulleted list. Atsme 📞📧 18:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Highlighted advancements written in prose with wikilinks to the respective main articles. Voila, a brief history of underwater diving.  You can also add a sentence or two about the history of each Diving mode, like when it was invented, for what purpose, if it's still in use or was replaced and if the latter, with what.  That will eliminate the lengthy History section considerably.  What you keep will be condensed to a few paragraphs and merged into the relevant section, or bulleted list. Atsme 📞📧 18:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I am busy with a 3-day workshop and my eyes feel like they have been lightly sandpapered, so might only get properly back to it about Friday, but have already started work on draft articles in userspace. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * History of underwater diving is now a large article. I have linked to it and condensed the section to the extent that it may be nearing its Schwarzschild radius. Underwater diving is now significantly smaller. I also surgically removed the table of diving activities, which is now in my user space as a draft awaiting inspiration and hopefully transformation into a useful article. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)