Talk:1973 Mount Gambier cave diving accident

Scuba diving Low‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal 1973 Mount Gambier cave diving accident is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Caves

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves articles

Section sizes

Section size for 1973 Mount Gambier cave diving accident (10 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,206	2,206
The Shaft	2,728	2,728
Background	3,170	3,170
Accident	4,010	4,010
Body recovery	4,396	4,396
Investigation and findings	1,601	4,392
Equipment	1,317	1,317
Allegation of contaminated air	1,474	1,474
Historical perspective and impact	5,342	5,342
References	7,837	7,837
Total	34,081	34,081

Dead link for main reference[edit]

Dnus, I am unable to check reference "The Shaft" as the link returns a 404error. please fix. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood, it appears they changed their website and I cannot locate that link anymore. I do have that PDF saved, and WayBackMachine has this cached version: https://web.archive.org/web/20210927001006/https://www.cavedivers.com.au/sites/default/files/TheShaft.pdf I am not sure what is to be done in this situation · · · Dnus (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dnus, an archived version on WayBack is entirely acceptable, you can link to it in the reference. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the ref link, and changed it to the original source which is a more authoritative publication than the website, and non-volatile, so much better for establishing notability. The style can still use a cleanup, which I will look into. A 1991 journal article on a 1973 incident suggests lasting interest, so I expect the article to be acceptable with a bit more work.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the source and in my opinion it is reliable and unusually well detailed for the era, written by a professional investigator with much experience in reporting incidents where accuracy is required. While some procedural recommendations have changed since the time of the incident, it remains a high quality resource. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objections[edit]

AngusWOOF could you clarify how Wikipedia:NOT#News and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT apply to this draft about an event that occurred nearly 50 years ago? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood, how does this accident have long-term repercussions on the area or in diving in general? See WP:NEVENT including WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, I was hoping for answers to my questions, ~~but~~ and once you have answered them I will answer yours.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is now in the article content, complete with references. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to mainspace as 1973 Mount Gambier cave diving accident[edit]

If there are no responses to outstanding questions or substantive new issues brought up within the next week I intend to transfer the article to mainspace on or after 10 December 2021. I intend to modify the title slightly using the year to disambiguate. Suggestions for alternative titles will be considered. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Ping me if I missed anything.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review[edit]

B	The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as `{{cite web}}` is optional.Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.Y Geolocation should be possible, but is not currently present The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Y Probably, though some expansion may be possible The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Y Infobox, navboxes, and categories present, and will be activated after moving to mainspace. No photos or illustrations available at this stage. A basic map of the cave should be possible Now has a diagram. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Y Probably sufficiently accessible to the lay person. Most technical terms wikilinked, though some may have been missed. If anyone disagrees please let me know which content is a problem. I can probably fix it

Very close. After it is published in mainspace I will draw a map. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK for B-class now. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]