Talk:Decompression (diving)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationalising decompression articles[edit]

(discussion copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scuba diving)

I have had a look at a few of the articles relating to decompression, and I think that some of them should be merged. A main article Decompression (diving) could be created and some of the more trivial articles like Decompression stop, Decompression curve and No Decompression Limit could be merged into it and redirected. Decompression is a major topic for diving, and I think the article should be planned a bit before starting if we do it. Any suggestions? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop a note to Legis in case he misses this note. He's done quite a bit of work on decompression, and created the {{Decompression}} navigation template. If I were you, I'd have a look at these articles to see what's covered there:
and the disambiguation page:
You might want to consider merging some or all of the content from the following articles:
There may be others. I'm hoping to collaborate with Gene Hobbs to update Decompression sickness and get it to FA status in the near future, so there may be more new, good quality sources coming along soon. It's worth looking in the Rubicon Research Repository for the most usable sources, as well as checking out PubMed for the physiological aspects.
I have started a basic outline at User:Pbsouthwood/Decompression (diving). Please take a look and comment, and if there are no major problems (It can always be rearranged later if neccessary) I will move it to article space and start the merges and redirects. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help if I can; I am just about to go travelling for a while so if I am slow in contributing, please don't wait for me! --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is nearing completion and I will submit it soon so the merges can be started. There will be quite a bit to do after that, but I think it would not be efficient to polish the draft much more. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New article Decompression (diving) is up. I will start on merges soon. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is AWESOME Peter! Let me know when I can start working on the references. Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like it, Start when you are ready. I will put up the inuse label if I start a big edit session. And feel completely free to improve where you can. I know there are errors, just havent found them yet. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This last minute DEMA rush caught me... I'll be back in a week and get started on the refs then. Thanks again! --
Gene, can I leave you to write a paragraph on In-water Recompression? It seem to be one of your specialties Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gene, I have done this already, but would appreciate if you would check it out and make any adjusment you think would improve it. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow guys this looks great, especially for only being up a few days. Great work!Meatsgains (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a bit longer than you think as it was in my user space for a week or so. Thanks anyway Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thats about it for now. I'm saturated with decompression theory and can't see the wood for the trees anymore. I will wait for comments or requests for clarification. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DCI vs. DCS[edit]

I would suggest using the term Decompression Sickness (DCS - aka The Bends, Caissons Disease, etc.) for this article instead of Decompression Illness (DCI). Decompression Illness includes Air Embolism and other conditions that can result from reduction of pressure, including Decompression Sickness. Since the article deals with decompression models, tables, and planning it is only dealing with the attempts to prevent the Decompression Sickness subset of Decompression Illness. All the models, tables, and planning will not prevent an Air Embolism from a panicked ascent or baroparisis from a blocked sinus, both which would fall under the Decompression Illness definition as described by Francis. KarlEHuggins (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I didn't realise I had used Decompession Illness. I will search through and change as appropriate. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see I used it in a heading! Possibly because of the title of one of the references. Anyway it has been changed. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article getting a bit cumbersome?[edit]

It is now pretty large, and will probably still grow a bit more, as there is information on some algorithms I am still looking for, and it needs a bit on development/adaptation of models for alternative diluent gases. Also I am sure I have missed a lot of explanatory detail, more diagrams, illustrations and photos etc. To get to the point: Is it too big, and if it should be split, how should that be done? Comments and suggestions requested. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the inclination (copied from User talk:George Ponderevo)[edit]

Hi George, I see you have been copyediting on a few pages on my watchlist. Your comments on Nitrogen narcosis encourage me to suggest Decompression (diving) as a possible target for your discerning eye. It needs an outsiders view and comments on its strengths and weaknesses. I am too involved to see the wood for the trees, and have no idea of how understandable it is to a layperson. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is that at 128 kB of readable prose the article is way too big, probably by a factor of three or four. The guidelines at WP:Article Size suggest a maximum of 30 kB to 50 kB, and less for technical articles like this one, so I think there's a lot of summarising and farming out of material required to achieve a proper summary style. Only when that's done would it be worthwhile to spend time on copyediting IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, Would you post it on the article talk page? I am aware of the size problem, but don't really know how best to make the split. If you have an opinion on that, please also put your recommendation on the talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to copy my comment over to the article talk page. I'll have a think about how I'd make the split and get back to you. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested split[edit]

Split out and replace with summary in existing title Decompression (diving):

Sections: Physics and physiology of decompression and Decompression models (New title: Physics and physiology of decompression, or Decompression theory)
Sections: Planning and monitoring decompression, Decompression procedures and Decompression equipment (New title: Decompression practice?)
Section: History of decompression (New title: History of decompression)

Comments and suggestions are requested. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion

Split apart into:

Sections: Physics and physiology of decompression and Decompression models (New title: Physics and physiology of decompression, or Decompression theory)
Sections: Planning and monitoring decompression, Decompression procedures and Decompression equipment (Existing title: Decompression (diving)- or new title: Decompression practice?)
Section: History of decompression (New title: History of decompression)

• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I think first of all that this article could be transformed into an overview article using the principles described at WP:Summary style. Examining how the splitting could be done, there are probably two approaches that could be taken:
  • Break into major topics - I'd identify, but not necessarily in this order: theory of decompression (including models); medical/physiological consequences (including management and treatment); procedures and practice (including tables, PDCs, and equipment); history and development (including milestones and key research).
  • Break into phases by time - For example: early work up to 1900; 1900-1959 Haldane, precautions, early tables, Behnke, O2 & treatment, USN tables; 1960-1987 studies of DCS, ICD, codification of procedures, new models, Buhlmann, heliox; 1988- Bubble models, nitrox, modern PDCs.
Although the latter approach would give a good overview of how the subject developed, and would minimise duplication, readers would have to dip into multiple articles to get a decent overview of a given topic. Therefore I'd prefer to split by topic, recognising that the history article would repeat some of the other articles' content, albeit in a timeline-like précis.
So, I'm more or less in agreement with Peter, although I think that 3 daughter articles may be too few and at least one of them would turn out to be still too big. Nevertheless, it is certainly a good start, and the result can always be re-examined later. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RexxS, I am currently reorganizing the contents by the major topics model. I will leave them in the current order until the split. After the split the order in the summary article can be adjusted if necessary, and the split sections will be independant and order will no longer apply except as links from the summary. If one or more of the daughter articles is too big that is another problem, and will depend on which one/s. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report[edit]

Article has been split four ways:

Class B checklist[edit]

  1. B-Class-1: It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
  2. B-Class-2: It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. B-Class-3: It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  4. B-Class-4: It is free from major grammatical errors.
  5. B-Class-5: It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
  6. B-Class-6: It presents content in an accessible way.

Article passes on all criteria. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for A-class article[edit]

I hereby nominate this article for A-class, and open the discussion.

For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page.

Please review the article and add your comments below:

A-Class criteria from WP:ACLASS:

Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written. A peer review should make the article a viable candidate for FA. Assessing an article as A-Class requires more than one reviewer. There are two basic methods available for doing this.

Standards for Featured article WP:FA Criteria:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is—
    • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
    • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    • (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    • (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
    • (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Comments[edit]

1. It is:

(a). Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
  • Not sure I can do engaging or brilliant. But fairly solid, mostly clear and unambiguous, not too bad on grammar and idiom. Professional enough for A-class? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(b). Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
  • I can not think of any major aspect missing. Possible more comprehensive than neccessary in some respects. Any suggestions? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(c). Well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate.
  • Most citations are compliant, the majority are even available on-line. Most are from peer reviewed journals or books by acknowledged experts in the field. I am pretty sure it is good on this count. There are a few points where a reference is requested, not beacause there is strong doubt that the information is verifiable, but because I don't have the reference and would like someone who does to add it. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(d). Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias.
(e). Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  • Small improvements are occasionally added. There have been no edit wars to date, and no controversy that I can remember. Most edits are simply correcting style, spelling, grammar or syntax.

2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:

(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • This could possibly be improved, but I think it is OK. I am open to constructive suggestions. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c.
  • Consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes. Complies with requirement. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions.

  • Reasonable number of images, no other media available. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions for alternative text welcome, I am out of my depth on that one. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No known issues with copyright of images in use. No known non-free images used. No known issues with image use policy. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are places where an additional image would significantly improve the article, please make constructive and specific suggestions (or just add a suitable image). Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses.

5. No Original Research (not specified in above criteria, but required anyway).

  • No known original research. Some obvious logical conclusions may have been drawn in paraphrasing the sources, and it is possible that unintentional inaccuracy may have crept in when restating the conclusions of others. Point them out and they will be corrected. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A-class article review[edit]

Following the A-class article assessment criteria stating that An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues

  1. Is it-
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; See comments
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; Yes
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;Yes
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; andYes
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.Yes
  2. Does it follow the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;Yes
    2. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; andSee comments
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.Yes
  3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.Yes
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.See comments
Comments
  • 1.1 The content is of a professional standard and engaging enough considering the article’s contents are technical in nature
  • 2.2 Although the table of contents might seem overwhelming at first, it cannot be avoided due to the large volume of information on the subject.
  • 4. The article is long but it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
Nomination supported
Yes.

Reviewer:Andreas.sta (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Decompression (diving)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 15:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. Comments will come soon.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomandjerry211, Glad to have you reviewing, I will be away for a few days on business next week, so if there is a lack of response from me for a few days it may mean I am busy or without internet access. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am back. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the issues:
  • No need to put a citation before you put the exact same citation near the end. It looks like this: William Howard was a dentist.[10] He was born in 1980. [10]
I will check for occurrences and rectify as appropriate. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found one instance. It was in a paragraph where two significantly different concepts needed citation, and coincidentally were referenced by the same source, not necessarily on the same page. It is my opinion that both statements could be reasonably required to be referenced, and that citing the same source twice in the paragraph is justified in this case. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Order your citations correctly. Not like: [29][10]
I didn't know that is a requirement. I will look into it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the requirement, can you link to it please? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a few more cites.
For what?• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to put citations in the lead.
No harm either from what I have read. I will remove any that I find redundant. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took out two. The only one left is for Taravana, which is not yet in the body. I will fix that soon.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems long in comparison with the article. Are you sure everything in the lead is in the article?
I think so, I will check • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some content on decompression sickness, which was mentioned in the lead and omitted from the body. I still need to get the references.
Refs added. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you put citations after punctuation, if possible.
I will do that where appropriate • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done, those which remain in mid-sentence are there to clearly indicate what they support. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. Navy link is dead.
Which US Navy link is dead? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Found it. Can do. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National variety of English[edit]

@RexxS: It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me which national variety of English any article uses, but Decompression (diving) should be consistent and not mix varieties.

You're right that the earliest edit to introduce a word that varies among varieties of English used "pressurised". I missed that. That same edit also introduced "pressurized" a few sentences further down, so that edit is inconclusive. Before the next user began contributing, the article contained both "organizations" / "organisations", and "recognize" / "recognise". It also contained the American "meters", "modeling", "program" (as in training), and "realized", but the British "flavoured" and "paralysed". I assessed Pbsouthwood's edits as favoring American English on the basis of more words with American spellings being used as of 06:42 31 October 2011. (I don't see the relevance of December 2011, as the American/British mix had not changed by that point.)

It furthermore seemed reasonable, as Peter is still active and contributed 94% of the text, to assume the current article largely reflects his spelling preferences. The current article uses the American "authorized", "maximizing", "metabolized", "minimizing", "modeled", "modeling", "pressurization", "recognized", "stabilizes", and "unpressurized", against the British "behavior" and "modelling". Perhaps Peter will weigh in. I'm happy to support whatever variety he wants or consensus arrives at, but the article should not be mixing "modeling" and "modelling", "recognized" and "behaviour" as it does today.

As you expressed no specific objection to the other 99% of the edit you reverted, I am implementing those improvements again. Feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page if there's something that troubles you. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I am South African, we tend to be tolerant of spelling variations, and have a few of our own, but lean more towards the British spelling if pushed into a corner. When asked for a preference I choose British spelling, because a few of the American spellings just look wrong to me, and, as RexxS has mentioned, the article was tagged for British spelling in 2011, so I think we should stick with that. Besides, British spelling accepts the z in -ised/-ized as an acceptable alternative if I remember correctly. I expect to edit the article again, often, and can make no guarantees that I will stick to either version consistently. On the other hand, I have no objection to friendly gnomery. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone really wants to be pedantic, the article was created as a split from another article. It may have been one I created, or may not, I don't remember, and don't really care enough to look it up. I think that somewhere back in the history there was a major merge of several articles on related topics, created by, one may assume, several users. I have no idea of which language preferences they may have had, if they expressed any. This is a can of worms, I don't recommend opening it. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: I agree that the article should be consistent and neither mix varieties of spellings nor of dates, but this article was created by merging multiple articles from many different editors and I am not surprised that different forms existed. Nevertheless that does not give you the right to alter the established date formats which have been settled as "dmy" since December 2011. You are working under a misapprehension if you believe that an editor's preference is the principal determinant for the style of either spelling or dates in an article. The deference to "first major contributor" is no more than a tie-breaker if no other reasons (strong national ties, settled established style, prior consensus) exist. And "the basis of more words with American spellings being used" has never been a criterion in MOS:ENGVAR. The template requesting "dmy" format has been in place for over four years now and you should respect that consensus as the established style. From that it is obvious that American English can't be a choice, nor can ISO-style dates and I'll therefore revert your incorrect changes again. --RexxS (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Decompression (diving). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Decompression (diving). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decompression_(diving)&oldid=1206913533"