Talk:Commercial offshore diving

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article makes unbalanced assertions about the safety of the industry, some of which are uncited. There is a strong emphasis on Norway, whereas the industry is worldwide. There is room for improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the most unbalanced assertion about safety in your view? --Pan of steel (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This article says this is the most dangerous form of professional diving but the page on professional diving says that HAZMAT diving is the most dangerous and sewer diving is the most dangerous form of HAZMAT diving. I suspect that sewer diving is in fact the most dangerous, but I am not sure enough to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The hazards are different, and the risks vary depending on the exact circumstances. In the absence of statistics to support any one mode of diving being measurably more dangerous, I think that the claims should be modified to high risk, or just dangerous instead of most dangerous. The most dangerous conditions are the ones that are fatal. Commercial diving is an occupation where fatalities are rare, and occupational health and safety authorities are watching for contraventions. Technical diving is probably significantly more dangerous at the extreme exposures, and military combat diving during war is probably the most dangerous of all. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Focus of article[edit]

This article seems to be mostly about historical safety and exploitation issues on Norwegian offshore oilfields, and not really much about that. There is probably more about actual offshore diving in other articles.

The article should be rewritten and expanded to fit the topic, or renamed to fit the content, or merged into another article. I have no strong opinions as to which would be the better route. At the moment it is moribund and misleading. I do not have the skills in Norwegian to improve the historical value of the only content that is unique to this article, nor the interest, knowledge or experience to build a decent article to fit the title.

I invite suggestions on how to deal with this. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

July 2016 expansion[edit]

Very good work, Peter. The diagrams are especially clear, but do remember that screen-readers can't see them, so it is helpful to make sure that you reiterate the points in the text as well.

I think the following terms would benefit from further explanation, preferably within the article:

  • blow-out preventer YesY linked
  • permanent guide base YesY clarified
  • BOP stack YesY clarified and linked
  • marine risers YesY clarified and linked
  • all production rig types YesY There is an article on production platforms it has been linked.
  • jack-up rigs YesY linked
  • scour YesY created new article and linked
  • stinger YesY linked and clarified
  • grout bagging
  • constant tension wires YesY clarified
  • microwave surface stations (Artemis) YesY linked and clarified
  • IMCA guidance YesY clarified
  • Concrete mattresses YesY linked
  • Frond mattresses YesY linked

I'd also recommend that you avoid phrases like "Trenching has been mentioned above" in Commercial offshore diving #Pipeline stabilisation. The order of sections is never fixed in Wikipedia, so a future reorganisation of the article, however unlikely, could make a nonsense of the phrase. It would be better to explain directly how trenching has an effect on pipeline stabilisation, even if it may seem obvious. HTH --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Helpful as usual. I was worried that explaining those terms in detail would be too much detail not directly related to the diving, as they are more oil production and engineering technology, but I suppose that where there is no Wikipedia article to link they should be explained. It is surprising how much of this stuff is not yet on Wikipedia. I may have to create some more articles. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

American system of training and offshore work practices[edit]

I understand that this is different to most of the rest of the world, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Anyone who knows enough about it is invited to contribute. If you are an expert or knowledgeable about the subject but have a conflict of interest, feel welcome to discuss recommended edits on this talk page and I or other unconflicted editors will make the changes. Bear in mind that references are needed. we cannot simply take your word - it is not allowed. Anyone who can recommend good and accessible sources/references can also list them here. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

B-Class review[edit]

B-Class article B 
  1. 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.
    Some sections still entirely unreferenced. N
  2. 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.
    Seems to cover the subject reasonably well. YesY
  3. 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.
    Looks OK. YesY
  4. 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.
    Looks OK YesY
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
    Some illustrations present, but scope for plenty more if/when they become available. Good enough at present. YesY
  6. 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.
    Looks OK to me. Some work was done to address this point. YesY

Close but not ready yet, needs some more referencing. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)