Talk:Surface-supplied diving

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

Commercial surface supplied standard is a compressor[edit]

Commercial surface supplied standard is a compressor not a "cylinder". A compressed gas (usually air unless it is saturation diving) tank is often used a backup (secondary air) however it is not usually the primary when there is a tender (somebody attending to the diver on the surface). So if the "cylinder supplying the umbilical is exhausted it can be removed and replaced with a full one at the surface" it is implied there is a tender. Compressed air tanks (usually scuba tanks) on a hooka are used for small(often solo) operations, such as boat hull cleaning. However there is rarely a tender. Even in snuba there is not usually going to be a tender available to change the tanks. Since this type of diving does not use coms (a diver tender communication device) there would not be anyway of knowing if the diver was out of air. I do admit the scenario described by this statement is theoretically possible, however the required situation is very much not the norm. This last sentence should be amended.Landrycameron (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

A merge of Compressor diving into Surface-supplied diving is suggested:

  1. Compressor diving is a subset of Surface-supplied diving.
  2. Compressor diving, though rather different in detail, is not sufficiently different to requre a separate article.
  3. Compressor diving article is small and likely to remain small.

Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment for B-class[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.
    There are still a large number of uncited paragraphs, but most of the material is uncontroversial, and should be fairly easy to source. Those left are mostly fairly obvious and uncontroversial but proving slow to find, so I am going to promote. YesY
  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.
    Coverage is generally adequate, with a few places needing a bit more clarification, and an empty subsection. The existing content should be adequate for B-class. 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.
    Article structure is logical and fairly well defined. 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 to me. 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.
    Plenty of relevant photographs of reasonable quality. More would be nice, but there are enough. 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, but I have the technical background. Other opinions welcome. YesY

Needs more citations, but as this should not be difficult, will delay promotion until there are fewer citations needed. I will get back to this, but assistance would be welcomed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Better now, so promoting, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)