Talk:Diver communications/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look at this. Harrias talk 11:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, much obliged. I will get onto your comments soon. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Are line signals the same as rope signals? If so, this needs clarifying, if not, then it needs to be explained what line signals are.
    They are the same, both terms are in common use, I will clarify.
    Done.
Voice communications
  • "through-water electronic voice communications systems" , "Through water communications systems" , "Most through water systems" and "Dry bells may have a through water communication". Be consistent about using a hyphen or not. I prefer it with, but you've generally done it without. I'm not overly fussed, but be consistent.
    Fair comment. I also have no strong feelings, so if you prefer hyphenated we will go with that. I will fix what I find, and feel welcome to change any that I miss.
    Done.
  • "Dry bells may have a..." This is the first, and as far as I can tell, only, mention of a "dry bell". Please provide a wikilink or an explanation as to what it is.
    Will comply
    Changed to more descriptive alternative and linked to section for full description - Done.
  • "Voice communications is the most generally useful format underwater.." Either "communication is" or "communications are".
    True, will fix.
    Done.
  • Need a full-stop at the end of this section.
    Will fix. My eyes are not great and I often don't notice the absence of full stops. You are welcome to put them in to save yourself listing their absence if you prefer.
    Done.

Reviewed to the end of Voice communications. More to follow. Harrias talk 11:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video communications
  • "This is always used with voice communication." This is ambiguous; it could be read that all voice communications are accompanied by video communications, which I don't think is the intent.
  • "..part of the divers umbilical." Should be "diver's" I guess, and what is the "umbilical"? This needs explaining.
    Fixed. I have linked diver's umbilical, but can explain in the article if you think it preferable.
Line signals
  • "..or RN signal." Clarify what RN stands for.
    Done.
  • "go back down till we stop you" I'd prefer "until" to "till" in an encyclopaedia.
    Done.
  • What is a "jackstay", and what do "shot" and "tender" mean?
    Linked to glossary or article. Is this sufficient?
  • "Takeup slack.." Should be "Take up"
    Done.
    Harrias, I would like your opinion here on whether to use numerals or words for the listings of line signals and their meanings. Some have been done each way, (1 pull vs One pull) and I think it should be standardised. The sources are not consistent if I remember correctly, but we can, and probably should be.
Cave line markers
  • "Cookies (round markers), Rectangular referencing exit markers.." Rectangular doesn't need a capital letter.
    Done.
Light and gas signals for surface supplied dives
  • What is "helmet flush"?
    Clarified in parentheses. If you prefer something different please specify.
  • Don't start a sentence with a number: "2 light flashes at the bell means.."
    Done.
Light and shape signals
  • Is this directly quoting the rules? That's a bit problematic based on WP:COPYVIO.
  • Yes, it is quoting international law. I thought it was PD, but will look into it.
    • The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations of 1996 are issued as a statutory instrument in the UK (Rule 27, page 20 is reproduced here). These are subject to Crown copyright, but since 2000, the UK government waives copyright for primary and secondary legislation: "formal and specific licensing will not be necessary"; and the default is the Open Government Licence for public sector information. IANAL, but it looks to me like the reproduction of the UK regulations is permissible. HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That my be useful as there is a good chance that the cited source used the UK published version of Colregs as their source. The other point that I am trying to follow up (so far without success) is the versions of Colregs published by the other English speaking signatories, of which there will be several, including USA. If they all use the same text, which would make sense, who can claim copyright? If any one of them allows PD, how can any of the others claim copyright? In this case, as the servers are in US, the US version could reasonably be considered definitive, but is it?· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can now confirm that the relevant text of the UK and US versions are exactly the same. If I understand correctly the US version is a US federal government publication and they are generally PD unless otherwise specified. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surface marker buoys
  • What is a "shotline"?
    Linked to article. Is this OK, or does it need local clarification?
Ultrasonic wearables
  • This section reads a bit like an advert; is the "Buddy-Watcher" the only system around? This might work a bit better if we can make it a bit more generic.
    As far as I know it is currently unique. There have been other roughly similar devices, but none seem to have gained much popularity, and they seem to have disappeared again. The description is as bland, basic and factual as I could reasonably achieve, but maybe you could suggest an alternative. I personally think this specific device is unlikely to be very effective, but that is my PoV, and inadmissible. It exists, appears from the specifications to perform as described here, and is mentioned neutrally for completeness of cover. The concept will probably eventually gain ground when the execution is more effective and affordable, but that too is only my opinion.
    I have added a bit on the more sophisticated and expensive UDI units, which were referenced in Ref#2, which is unfortunately now dead, but there is still some information available on the net. Specs are easy enough found from the manufacturer's site, but 3rd party comment is less easy to find. Nevertheless, they appear to still exist.
  • "20m" and "40m" need convert templates.
    Done.
References
  • Could do with a page number for ref #1.
    Ref 1 (Agnew 2003) is paper, and I do not have it, so cannot get a page number. It is pretty common knowledge among divers that divers use slates for communication, so if you require it I can find another source, probably several. I actually have quite a few slates of my own if you think a photo would be worth adding.
  • Need publisher details for ref #2.
    Link seems to be dead. I dont know how to look for it on internet archive system, but I would recognise the site if it can be found as I looked into this item when it came out. I will try to find substitutes.
    I've replaced the bare url with {{cite web}} and included the archived version I found from the Wayback Machine. Peter: just ping me if you need me to search for the originals of dead links (or Skype me sometime and I'll talk you through it). HTH --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RexxS, Much appreciated. I guess that is a skill I should learn for myself. I must get around to it some time. Possibly next time I need to track one down. Thanks for the offer. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page number for ref #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #12.
    Done for #4, (Bevan 6.2)
    I don't have the latest edition of IMCA D014 (#5), so page numbers may not be the same. everything except video monitoring is mentioned on page 13 of the 1998 edition, and there are other references available for the presence of video monitoring in bells available on the net (it is a recent development). Is it validation or actual page number that you need?
    Ref#6 (IMCA D022 (2000)) Done. Two versions are referenced. I only have one.
    Ref#7 (Hanekom and Truter) Done
    Ref#8 (Hollien and Rothman) Done
    Ref#12 (Bevan 6.3) Done
    Page numbers added to a few other references. Usually as page ranges where the same ref is used several times. Split Prosser three ways as it is used in three sections, one chapter for each. The chapters are quite short, so verification is not difficult, and the document is freely downloadable as a pdf.
    It is not clear whether page numbers are required for every reference. Some are not accessible, some are web pages. I will try to provide pages where it is reasonably practicable, but would prefer to know how much time I am expected to spend trying on the difficult ones. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this could do with a slight change of tone to make it more of an encyclopaedia article, and less of an instructional manual. I've only checked up to reference 12 so far, and found 8 issues; please look through the rest yourself to identify anything further before I give it a final pass. This is a decent article, but more of it could do with being put in context; I like the history section, but if more of it could be written in that fashion, it would benefit. I'll put this on hold to give you some time to work on it. Harrias talk 12:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, Thanks for your generally useful and relevant comments, I have done what I understood to be what you were suggesting, up to References, which may take a little longer depending on which ones I have available, but it is possible that I may have misunderstood at times, so please check whether I have adequately addressed your concerns. I particularly value pointers where clarification is needed by the lay reader, and can explain as much as is necessary, but don't want to overdo it.
I will read through the whole thing and try to work out what can be done to put it more in context and improve the tone, and would welcome any suggestions, as I am a bit amongst the trees, and unable to see the wood as clearly as an outsider might. Any recommendations beyond the requirements for GA would also be welcome, provided they are specified as further recommendations, as it is more important to me to improve the usefulness of the article to the reader over the long term than the short term goal of GA. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me what is meant by putting it in context, and which parts need to be put in context. An example might help clarify this request. I have started an introductory section which will discuss the need for diver communications. Is that the sort of thing you mean? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: A bit of family illness at the moment means that I'm not really around much for a bit I'm afraid. Sorry for the delay, but I want to give this the attention it deserves, rather than trying to rush it. Harrias talk 13:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, No worries, get back to it when you are ready. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood Back around now, will be back to this soon. Harrias talk 18:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up Harrias, Compliments of the season, and I hope your family illness problems are satisfactorily resolved. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias Pbsouthwood Hi everyone! What is the status of this review? It seems that no progress has been made in nearly 3 weeks.--Dom497 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dom497, I don't mind waiting if Harrias does not have time right now. I am not in any rush. As far as I can tell I have dealt with everything specified so far. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the History section, it says "More recently, through-water systems.." Can you a bit more precise on when "recently" refers to? Harrias talk 20:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peter (Southwood), do you plan to address this any time soon? And since Harrias has not been posting much in the past couple of months, should we try to find another reviewer to finish off this review? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, Sorry, I did not notice the latest post by Harrias, or would have done it already if it is possible to find a source indicating the approximate date of through-water systems becoming generally available. Give me a day or two. It is quite possible that I will not find anything, but until I try, who knows? Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have found several sources and will write something up, probably tomorrow.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added some specific details on time-line as requested, and expanded the explanation of through water systems as I found more referenced information.
BlueMoonset, Harrias. Standing by again. I don't mind if Harrias continues, or if a new reviewer takes over, as long as any comments or requirements of the review continue to improve the article. I am in no hurry, and the article has benefited a lot by this review already. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer[edit]

Per the above, I'll pick up the review from here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, Much obliged. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go through. As with scuba diving, I'll comment as though this were FAC, but will pass the article at GA level.

  • There are two aspects to diver communications: Divers who are diving together as a team need to communicate for safety and efficient completion of the task, and divers who are diving with a surface support team need to communicate with the surface team, also for safety and efficiency. A bit wordier than I think it needs to be. The first sentence doesn't seem necessary at all. How about: "For safety and efficiency, divers may need to be able to communicate with others diving with them, or with their surface support team."?
    No problem, will fix. P
     Done
  • I see a few sentences without citations.
    If you think they are not reasonably obvious and need citation, please tag so I know which ones they are. P
    Added three; the trouble is that what's obvious to you is not obvious to another reader, so I've only left one uncited sentence untagged. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite agree. Obvious is in the eye of the beholder, which is why more reviewers is often better, and why I prefer specifically tagged sentences. P
     Done Found out something new while searching for refs for freediving hand signals, so a net gain.
  • A simple, logical and widely standardised system of signals is more effective.: More effective than what?
    Will clarify. P
    Better?
  • This system was well-established by the mid-20th century, and has been technologically improved: the time frame for "has been" isn't clear -- has been improved since the mid-twentieth century? By the mid-twentieth century? Has been improved since its introduction, and continues to be improved now?
    Will clarify. P
     Done
  • and has been technologically improved, but is still in common use: why "but"? Looks like "and" would make more sense.
    Will check. P
    As above.  Done
  • Do we know why the Wet Phone failed? Was it too expensive, or did it not work well?
    I will try to find out, but probably both reasons, as both reasons are still major obstacles to widespread adoption. It is very likely that I will not be able to find a source at all, never mind a reliable one. P
    Not very reliable source says the first version was unsatisfactory, but later version was accepted by US Navy. No indications of price found. Will put this on the wish list, but don't hold your breath.
    OK -- not an issue for GA, but I'll leave it unstruck as a pointer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard wired (cable) voice communications are currently the primary method: needs an "as of", ideally, though this is not likely to change soon, of course.
    Will clarify. P
     Done
  • Why do we care about the difference between two-wire and four-wire systems? Is there a functionality or reliability difference?
    It is a little vague, but will try to get clarity. P
    Clarified. Please check that it makes sense to you.  Done
  • The comment about monitoring breathing patterns is in the history section and is repeated in the voice section; I think it only needs to be in the latter.
     Done
  • a stronger and often cleared signal: should be "clearer"?
    Yes, ordinary typo. Will fix. P
     Done
  • The signal can bounce off the bottom and surface and other obstructions. Since you say AM is restricted to line of sight, this presumably refers only to SSB?
    I think that the interference caused by these reflections is a major problem with signal clarity. Will try to clarify. P
    Clarified.  Done
  • the ultrasonic frequency is converted back to intelligible speech, amplified and converted to sound by the earphone: this says the signal is converted to sound twice, which I imagine is not correct.
    Not well expressed, will try to clarify. P
    Clarified. It is now more technically accurate, but please check if clear enough.  Done
  • PTT is described as the most popular, and a sentence later as the preferred mode for many divers; one of these comments can be eliminated.
    PTT is most popular (common?) system manufactured and is preferred by many divers. Will clarify.
     Done
  • Need to be consistent between "through water" and "through-water" when using it as an adjective; I think the latter is correct.
    Concur. Will fix where I find. P
    I think I got them all.  Done
  • They operate between a battery powered transducer on the bell: "between" needs two nouns -- you only give one here.
    Good catch, will fix. P
     Done
  • I think the "Hyperbaric speech distortion" section needs some work. It starts by saying that communication is inadequate or non-existent, which reads oddly after the sections above that explain how well some of the systems work. The comments about visibility and signing seem irrelevant to a section with this title. Helium speech unscramblers have already been mentioned above. I think if a couple of these extraneous comments were cut the section would feel more focused. Perhaps cutting the first paragraph, and giving the section a lead sentence that focuses on the topic of the section, would be a good start. Another point: intelligibility problems with helium are mentioned in para 3, but the unscramblers are mentioned in para 4.
    Will look into this. P
    This may take a little longer P
    I have done some work, and I think it is better. Let me know what you think.
    Much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a link or inline explanation for "decompression obligation"?
    I will find a suitable link. P
    Linked to glossary, which links to article with reference.  Done
  • Suggest linking "bellman" to the underwater diving glossary on first use".
    Will do. P
     Done
  • The section on "Tap codes" gives no details at all, in contrast to the great detail provided for rope and hand signals. If it can't be expanded it probably shouldn't have a top level section to itself; nor should the next section, since it is also very short.
    I will look into this. P
    Merged section 'Tap codes' into next section 'Miscellaneous emergency signals' and added a few more with ref.  Done

-- That's it for the text; I have not yet looked at the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, some useful feedback. I will be on it today. Some items may take a while, and some may be difficult to find references to clarify. Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, just realized I should have pinged you when I left the notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have not been watching very closely and have been rather busy with other things, so missed it on my watchlist, but will get onto it now. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, Done for now, awaiting your further comments. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues that are not required to fix for GA, but you may wish to address:

  • [1] is a dead link.
    Found another link to same article.  Done
  • You have some hyphens in page ranges -- e.g. footnotes 3, 20, 21, 23.
    Could not find any myself. Prosser and Grey (3) seems to be an n-dash, and the US Navy Diving Manual uses compound page numbers like 3-24 for chapter 3 page 24, so those are not page ranges (20, 21, 23)
  • You don't need "access-date" if you don't have a URL -- footnote 24.
    Fixed  Done

All sources seem to be reliable. Once the cn tags are fixed I will promote this to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I think I have done everything on your list that can be done. Wet Phone remains unclear due to lack of sources. Maybe one day... Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Mike, for picking this up and getting it finished. A pleasure to work with you again. Thanks also due to Harrias for the earlier work. The article is considerably improved thanks to both your efforts. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure. I look forward to seeing the whole suite of core diving articles reach featured status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, Mike, and one of the things I still have to do is decide what those articles are. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diver_communications/GA1&oldid=838198378"