Jump to content

Talk:History of decompression research and development

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 31 January 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Class B rating

[edit]

The content of this article was split from the excessively large B-class article Decompression (diving). There was no immediately obvious reason why it should not retain B-class rating as the split section was reasonably complete at the time and suitable for a stand-alone article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede intro sect too long

[edit]

Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should be max four (4) paragraphs.

This one is eight (8) paragraphs.

That's a bit long.

Could cause symptoms of TL;DR.

Strongly suggest trimming it down to size of four, succinct paragraphs, of four or five sentences each.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

Sorry this has waited so long for a GA review. I'm not up to it right now but I do have a couple quick suggestions:

  • In the bulleted time line, choose either present tense (e.g. "Thalmann extends use of E-L model"), past tense ("Dr. Andrew Smith first used the terms"), or noun construction ("Introduction of recompression tables") and stick with one throughout.
  • Define uncommon terms inline (e.g. "supersaturation") or at least link to articles on them.
  • Rephrase: "A large number of decompression experiments were performed" it should be a large number was but that sounds weird.

Sorry to just drive by like this, good luck and good work so far! delldot ∇. 03:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of decompression research and development/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to start reviewing this article. Disclaimer, I am part of the GA cup and I know next to nothing about decompression other than it involves people getting wet ;-) but that also allows me to take an outsider's view of the article to ensure it's a Good Article for all audiences, not just those that already know a lot about the subject.  MPJ-US  12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, however after about 4 months of waiting, I now have 3 articles simultaneously in GA review, and a business trip next week where I may be cut off from the net for a few days, so things may appear to go a bit slowly at times. I will do what I can. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the saying is "Feast or famine", nothing for months and now all at once. No worries I will work with you on the timing etc. we'll get it figured out. MPJ-US  21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's start with the obvious - the GA Toolbox resources

GA Toolbox

[edit]
Peer Review
This is not entirely consistent with MoS, which as far as I understand it, only requires no-break spaces when the unit is an abbreviation. I left a massage about this on the peer review talk page, but apparently there is no-one available to fix it. I will ensure that all abbreviated units get a no-break space. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done all that I found, but may have missed one or two. Please feel free to either fix or point out any I have missed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tool calls out "Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article." Please let me know which version is the correct intended version so I can highlght any issues with this
Lets make it British English, though I am South African and not fussy on this point. I tend to rely on my browser spellchecker. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style
OK, I will see what looks reasonable. If you have any specific recommendations go ahead and recommend. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited TOC to level 3 headers, which seems to work quite well in this case.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio Detector
  • Green tickY comes back as "unlikely" so that's a positive
Disambig Links
  • Green tickY no problems
External links
  • Source #9 is dead
I will try to fix. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link at suunto.com is dead
I will try to fix. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 20, 22 and the "sciencemag.org" links come back with a change to the url, to prevent link rot I suggest those get updated
I will see what I can do. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stacks.iop.org link in #19 requires subscription, I believe that can be indicated in the citation template.
New one to me, How should that be done? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18, 19, 44, 48, 50, 81, 82 and 87 have bare urls showing in the citations, that should be fixed
OK • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestons from delldot

[edit]

These were on the talk page, I agree with them.

  • In the bulleted time line, choose either present tense (e.g. "Thalmann extends use of E-L model"), past tense ("Dr. Andrew Smith first used the terms"), or noun construction ("Introduction of recompression tables") and stick with one throughout.
Looks like a reasonable thing to do. I will start soon. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define uncommon terms inline (e.g. "supersaturation") or at least link to articles on them.
OK, Please let me know if I miss any. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase: "A large number of decompression experiments were performed" it should be a large number was but that sounds weird.
I will take a look.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General stuff

[edit]

There is an "External links" section but no content? how about just removing it?

OK • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone beat me to it. Thanks, whoever it was. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come as I work through this article MPJ-US  13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General Reviews

[edit]
  • "These bubbles and products of" - should have a comma after "bubbles"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "well tested" should be "well-tested"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in later experiments signs of what" - should have a comma after "experiments"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo - decmpression
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low risk" should be "low-risk"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Line starting with 1660, should be "predated"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Line starting with 1847 should be "the treatment"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1868 - Should be "sponge diver's"&
Fixed differently • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1873 - to match tense I would think it should be "sickness was caused"?
Not found. Maybe 1878?, in which case, it still is caused by nitrogen gas bubbles, so I think present tense is OK for that part. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for the term "perfusion"?
Yes. Are you referring to 1897...? I have linked it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1927 - "At that time" instead of "at this time,"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1965 - don't think the "A" should be capitalised
It is the title of the paper, so have deleted "on" instead, and added commas. Check if you are OK with it.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1965 - reads like a massive run-on sentence. Revise it and possibly break it down into 2-3 sentences
Split into two. Looks better. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible links for "isobaric" and "counterdiffusion"?
Linked to isobaric counterdiffusion. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1976 - tense "can detect" should be "could detect"
Still true, so have changed was to is for consistency. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1983 - "altitude diving, and", no comma needed
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CCR abbreviation is not explained
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for "Nitrox"?
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2007 "indirectly affect risk of" should be "indirectly affect the risk of"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bubble formation, while minimising decompression time" does not need the comma
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of compartments, range of half times" should be "of compartments, the range of half times"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Theory" could be intergrated with the previous section, making it less choppy
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "Experimental Work"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "logarithmic curve, and is" does not need the comma
comma deleted • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the various table sections are quite short and their volume increase the TOC sigificantly, could some be combined
I will look into this • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "FSW" an abbreviation for?
Should be fsw, and it stands for feet of seawater, a unit of pressure common in diving, but seldom used anywhere else. Decompression chamber internal pressure gauges and pneumofathometers (depth gauges for surface supplied divers which use an open ended tube full of air to measure the diver's depth) are usually calibrated in fsw and msw (metres of seawater). Not actually a depth, so not appropriate in that specific context. I have changed them to ft as the text refers to depth, not pressure. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half time" should be "half-time"
12 cases fixed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several bullet lists in those sections, can they be rewritten as prose?
I will take a look. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • first time PFM is used it should be spelled out.
No instances of PFM found. Perhaps PFO (Patent Foramen Ovale)? Your advice is valid for PFO and I have spelled it out and linked. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Addition of longer half-time" should be "The addition of longer half-time"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MSW should be spelled out first time it's used
msw was not correct as the text referred to depth. I changed it to m. Also spelled out and linked first instances of fsw and msw. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the actual depth for the two lower altitude tables" should be " the actual depth used for the two lower altitude tables"
Changed, but slightly differently. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "120 minute" should be "120-minute"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the early 1950s Hempleman developed" should be "In the early 1950s, Hempleman developed"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "modified Hempleman tissue slab model, and" should be "modified Hempleman tissue slab model and"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RNPL tables were used by the British Sub-Aqua Club" should be "was used" since it reflects back to "a version"
dine • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "parallel models, and assume that" - does not need the comma
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ambient partial pressures, and is" - does not need the comma
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus diving situations" shold be "Thus, diving situations"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consistent with accidental production of arterial bubbles" should be "consistent with the accidental production of arterial bubbles"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PFO needs to be spelled out first time it's used
already done and linked • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reached a critical size, when they are" does not need the comma
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "associated to a corrective" should be "associated with a corrective"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk):
  • "During gas uptake tissue" should be "During gas uptake, tissue"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo "Algotithm"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo "compertments"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RNPL/BSAC tables, when the Club wanted" does not need the comma
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it are considered" should be "as it is considered"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explanation for in vivo?
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provided by elastic surface layer" either needs "a" or "the" before elastic.
or in this case "an". Done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed tag after "grow during decompression"
cited • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In effect this is equivalent" should be "In effect, this is equivalent"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "bubble-formation" should be "bubble formation"
I am happy to go with that. Done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo "dissolyed"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo "ceofficents"
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for "Heliox"?
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed tag after "1956 tables and issued in the early 1980s"
This may be difficult, I have emailed NAUI for help.

Sources

[edit]

The following sections are totally unsourced or appear to only source a small portion of the content. This is a big problem for a GA candidate

Not too big, as a lot of it is already referenced elsewhere in the article. It should not take more than a couple of hours,
  • 1660 in the timeline
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1956
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1965
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1973
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1984
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1985
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1986
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1990 through 2007
1990 done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1991
done - turns out it was actually 1981. Typo I assume. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1992
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1999
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2001
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2003
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2007
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2008
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haldanean (perfusion limited, dissolved phase) models
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haldane's model
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk):
  • Decompression tables
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. Navy decompression tables
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified U.S. Navy 1956 tables
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huggins model and tables
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PADI Recreational Dive Planner
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bühlmann tables
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • French Navy – Marine Nationale 90 (MN90) decompression tables
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section is from the same reference, do you want me to add it to every item in the list? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory model
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pandora tables
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Varying Permeability Model
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bubble nucleaton
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modifications to models and algorithms for diluent gases other than nitrogen
done• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative diluent gases
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really impressed with the amount of work you've already put in this. Side note the subscription inclusion is actually super easy. Just add "subscription = yes|" in the cite template and that's all. Keep up the good work it's close to GA status.  MPJ-US  03:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I retain some memory of where to find most of the content. Most of the work has been finding the right page. Some of those references are long and not what you would call "light reading". Even worse, some take about 10 minutes to download. Most of the easy ones are done, I may have to do a bit more heavy searching for some of the remainder. Nevertheless I remain confident that it is all possible. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subscription worked fine, but I had to create the template first, and the ref had a DOI template which caused a few worries. However I just guessed some shortcuts and it worked. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, I have completed everything so far except the one citation for the first NAUI tables. I am waiting for a response from NAUI to see if they can point me to something, but I have inside information that not much from that era was recorded. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • wow you have been a tornado of activities. It is looking great right now, i will check it over tonight and see what is left. If the section without a source is l then we'll see what we.can figure out for that.  MPJ-US  20:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally satisfied with the updates, we just have one issue left. If you rephrase the statement as simply "The first NAUI tables were issued in the early 1980s.", then find a source on the publication date then you can always add it what they're based on if you ever get the source? Just a suggestion since it's probably easier to find the publication date and you don't have unsourced content in it. Oh and first time NAUI is used please expand the abbreviation. Just putting the article on hold while you decide on how to address the final issue.  MPJ-US  11:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the date is just as unciteable as the tables' origins. I cannot find a reference for the date either, other than the fairly obvious inference that it was before the second version. The easiest solution is to just remove the statement directly referring to the earliest tables, and just imply them by referring to the second issue, which is referenced in Huggins 1992.
Besides that, are you satisfied that the article is accessible to a reasonably intelligent and literate layperson, which I am assuming you to be in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Please point out any areas which could or should be clarified. If there are significant sections which appear to assume an unrealistic prerequisite background, I would like to know which they are, so I can work on them. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the table itself have like a copyright date or anything? if not then yeah by listing the second version it is clear that there was a first version at some point before. I will read through the article once more, checking to see if there are sufficient links for anything that may be unclear to me. The article does not have to explain everything to me but give me the ability to dig deeper if I am unfamiliar and would like to know more. So I will do a final read through with that specifically in mind.  MPJ-US  15:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found a reference while searching for Nu-Way tables. Go figure...
I don't know where to get a copy of the original tables to check for copyright. I have not seen them for over 20 years. They are printed on a plastic card, not the sort of thing found in a library. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIrst time the abbreviation DCS is used (timeline, 1847) it should be spelled out, then it can be abbreviated.
done • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any links for the following
  • Nu-Way
The only thing I could find is Nu-Way tables for sale. I don't know if they produce anything else, or even if they are still selling the same tables. There seem to be several companies called Nu-Way or similar, none of which look very likely as suppliers of diving equipment. No Wikilinks appear to be available. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dacor
Wikilinked • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doppler
Wikilinked • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article I get a sense of everything or a link where I am lost, except the few items above. Yes it's a scientific article and it's using scienc jargon but that cannot be helped, there is a certain level that's expected and I think you generally strike that balance well.  MPJ-US  15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have found it interesting. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was very interesting, I had only a passing knowledge of this - mainly what you see on film and stuff. So based on the latest updates I am satisfied that this now hits all the criteria for a Good Article. Congratulations I am going to promote this to Good Article status.  MPJ-US  12:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of decompression research and development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_decompression_research_and_development&oldid=1201181388"