Talk:Buoyancy compensator (diving)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CO2 toxicty

CO2 is toxic see Carbon_dioxide#Animal toxicity

Mark.murphy 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Advertising by 'Dive Right'

I have removed the last two edits which were primarily to advertise 'Dive Right' products. Tripper 12:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising by Dive Right??? Never saw the advertising but surely this is "Dive Rite" Dave Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.154.147 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I don't know about anyone else but I call them "BCDs" (Buoyancy Compensation Devices) Discuss?Rincewind32 (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of divers call them BCDs. An acronym may be in common usage, but it doesn't make it a good title for an article. As you can see, the first sentence of this article mentions "BCD" as another name for Buoyancy compensator, so the use is covered there. However, there are other meanings for the acronym "BCD" - just type BCD into the search box on the left of this page and you'll see a dozen more possibilities. So we use the commonest unambiguous name for an article's title and make redirects (or disambiguation pages) for other possible names. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a lifejacket

I was wondering whether a Buoyancy Compensation Device could be used to replace lifejackets. Not sure whether BCD's have the same float strength and durability as lifejackets. Also not sure whether they allow a person to attain a suitable hight above the water surface (as divers generally stay below the water surface, eg nose just below it) and whether they allow to keep a person on the back when fully blown up. Also, only a small bottle (pony) can be used. However if possible, could allow to reduce costs as a lifejacket is always required on a vessel anyhow, thus eliminating double costs. KVDP (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated by mouth, BCs are far more durable and better than cheap kapoc lifejackets (as are wetsuits, which are even more passively unlikely to fail), but in praticality it's hard to remove stowed lifejackets every time divers board a boat, and then stow them on again when they leave. Somebody would be likely to forget. Thus, the law simply requires the life jackets to be there all the time, and that's wise. However, it can't require that divers USE them if the boat is going down! A scuba diver on a sinking boat would be a fool not to don all his/her scuba gear (including BC and suit and fins, mask and snorkle, but of course minus tank and weights) and leave the life jackets right where they are. We had explicit instructions to do that in my own training many years ago, and they make very good sense. SBHarris 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that Steve says, but would add that every BCD has a disclaimer stating that "This device is not a lifejacket". Presumably this is to avoid manufacturer's liability if something went wrong when the BCD was being used as one. I do remember a lot of controversy in clubs when BCDs began to be common (late 1980s, if I recall correctly). I had been trained using an ABLJ ("horsecollar") and the older divers insisted that the BCDs were unsafe as they would position an unconscious diver face-down on the surface, while the ABLJ would always result in a face-up position. Anyway, a complete absence of any incidents of that kind eventually persuaded them that BCDs were safe. The same thing happened of course when I switched to backplate/wings a few years later! --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharkey wearing Fenzy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sharkey wearing Fenzy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wings have tendency to float divers facedown

"but have a greater tendency to float the diver face-down on the surface, which presents a possible hazard in an emergency." The above sentence was removed today without specifying a reason, but it seems the reason is quite obvious, it simply is not true and there is no justified reason to state it.

Can you provide sources that confirm this face down floating of back inflation (wing) BC's? 84.82.234.122 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (ilya)[reply]

No, only personal experience with both types, which is no reason to make any claim here, as it counts as original research. However it does make me unlikely to accept an unsourced claim to the contrary. Do you have a source to show that they do not have a greater tendency to float an unresponsive diver face down rather than face up? If you disagree with the current wording there are three acceptable options.
  1. Find a reliable reference supporting an opposing view, and make the change.
  2. Challenge the existing text by adding a {{citation needed}} template, which puts the onus on the people who support the current text to find a reference, failing which, after a reasonable interval, it may be removed.
  3. Start a discussion on the talk page, which is what you have now done. However your arguments so far do not convince me as you provide no evidence to support your view, which goes against my experience.
You can suggest a change or change the wording to something you find more acceptable, as can anyone else. A citation from a reliable source is the best option if you can find one, and would be welcomed as an improvement to the reliability of the article.
A look at the balance of buoyancy forces suggests that the centre of buoyancy of a diver trimmed for good balance underwater will be dorsal to the centre of gravity, and with a back inflation buoyancy system the centre of buoyancy will usually move further back as the wing is inflated more. My experience with wings is in agreement with this hypothesis. I assume yours is not?
Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed my experience / original research is different. As the bottle is further back than the flotation device the centre of a properly trimmed diver for good balance underwater the centre of gravity can be further backwards, making one sit vertical or slightly backwards (or forwards). The clearest arguments on this topic that I found during a brief research indicate that it depends on too many factors to simply put that they do have this greater tendency. My suggestion to a change of wording would then be "but might show a tendency to float the diver in such a way that he tilts forward, depending on the distribution of weight.". Ilya devers (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilya, That looks better to me. Weight distribution makes a difference. However the wing type BC will not hold an unresponsive diver face up on the surface. Some effort is required by the diver to hold his head up so he can breathe, so a wing will not serve as a lifejacket, which was probably the point the original editor was trying to make. The forward tilt effect is also increased when the BC is filled to capacity, which is likely if the diver is stuck out at sea and tired or distressed, or is being rescued. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too speak from personal experience. Divers experiencing a forward push by using a wing generally use a wing that has too much lift capacity for the tanks used. A rig that is properly balanced wil not push a diver face forward. The dutch website http://frogkick.nl/ corroborates this. More (English) information can be found in : Doing It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving by Jarrod Jablonski. ISBN 0-9713267-0-3l 2001:980:CD86:1:AD60:9518:E1DC:7CE6 Casrenooij (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casrenooij, I can't find the reference in Fundamentals, could you give me a chapter or page reference? I have 2006 issue in case there is a difference.
I will take a look on Frogkick as I can read some Dutch. However Frogkick is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, possibly because it does not identify the authors of the articles. (I am guessing here, I wasn't in on the discussion at the time).
The article should reflect the full range of BC and wing usage, not just DIR. There are divers who use a wing with more buoyancy than is strictly needed, and there are several reasons why they may do this, not only poor choice of equipment. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the reference on Frogkick. Could you give me a full url to the relevant page please? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On frogckick you can find it under apparatuur / Technisch DIR / wings. They use some script making it not possible to deeplink. The reference in The fundamentals of better diving is mentioned here : http://www.direxplorers.com/dir-equipment-configuration-articles/7137-weighting-search-balanced-rig.html. Casrenooij (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Frogkick I find where it says a wing can keep your head well out of the water, as if floating in a little boat, and lower down that it is a fable that a wing will press one's face down in the water. Was there anything else?
I can't find any reference to surface trim on the direxplorers page.
Neither of these is useful as a citation for this case. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although not a reliable source either, the following article clearly discusses why a typical wing / backplate configuration will not push your face in the water at all, as personal experience shows. It is because the center of gravity and the center of lift are very much at the same, making a BC that is not only effective, but very trimmed and "unopinionated," no matter what position the diver chooses. It is good to notice however that this article discusses backplates/wings, NOT back-inflated vest BC's... Realizing this, I have no experience with back-inflated Vest BC's.. For me the rephrased statement is fine. Please note also that the frogkick discussion and the fundamentals of better diving both address backplate / wing design BC's that don't show this behaviour. Regarding your comment regarding life-jackets; it is very important to realise that NO BC can act as a life-jacket. It simply does not have the required attributes to be one... Ilya devers (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the wing is fully inflated at the surface it may have some 5kg or more positive buoyancy, centred quite low on the body and depending on the distribution of weights, may be towards the the front of the centre of buoyancy or behind it, so it may tilt the diver either way. Usually not much, but if unconscious, you don't need to be tilted forward much to drown. However, as you point out, a BC is a buoyancy compensator not a life jacket, and a good life jacket makes a poor buoyancy compensator. I will check to make sure the article does not suggest that a BC is a substitute for a life jacket.
The article in your link is not a very good explanation of static stability. The author neglects to mention the downward shift in centre of buoyancy when the upright diver's head is lifted out of the water as the BC is filled.
I also have no personal experience of back inflation jackets. Their trim stability would depend on the volume distribution like any other type. Maybe the matter of diver trim needs some more detailed explanation. I will look for references but I don't remember ever reading anything both accurate and complete on the subject. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My first buoyancy compensator was an ABLJ (adjustable buoyancy life jacket) and that was definitely a life jacket. It was designed to place the centre of buoyancy well in front of the chest, which creates a torque that pretty much guarantees to rotate anyone onto their back on the surface. Anyone wearing a weight-belt would have an even greater moment forcing them face-up. It may be obsolete but it is a very real example of a BC that does act as a life-jacket. Anecdotally, my current twinset & wings floats me almost perfectly vertical on the surface when the wings are fully inflated. I'd have no fear of my face being in the water if I were unconscious under those conditions. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have personal experience with Wings, Jackets and even the old Horsecollars...roughly a decade each...the claim that a Wing isn't more susceptible to face-down is utterly false. What is true is that the BC's bladder is part of a larger system and it is possible --> but not necessarily always so <-- that other parts of said system can be employed to offset the back-mount location of the wing and its torque contribution. Examples of such offsets and how they're employed include: (a) use of steel tanks (usually also twins): when empty, they haven't become positive (like the classical rental AL80 tank does); (b) greater thermal protection (including drysuits) as they're most buoyant on the surface and also provides their buoyancy 'forward' on the body (and more commonly found on Technical/Expeditionary divers); (c) the selection of a heavier gage steel backplate, and/or a "keel" weight: both serve to relocate ballast to be {further} behind the spine instead of the classical weightbelt around the diver's torso...the website cited above by llya has this within its illustrations. From a Mechanical Engineering perspective, this question is a reasonably straightforward (force) X (moment arm) = torque --> torque balance question. Since we can't change the gravity vector, the orientation of the diver is the output ... ie, what is changed to obtain system equilibrium. A diver not in system equilibrium will have to exert energy to be in the orientation that they want, which for long floats will invariably lead to fatigue and a significant risk of death. Naturally, some types of diving - - Cave Divers typically come to mind - - do not have to worry about a long float waiting for a chase boat, so this can be ignored as a risk factor in their overall risk assessment and consequent equipment selection. As a design susceptibility, it tends to be higher in warm tropical waters where there's(a) an AL80 rental tank; (b) minimal wetsuit; (c) no heavyweight backplate or keel weight because of airline weight restrictions. Particularly because these latter factors describes contemporary mainstream recreational divers, I strongly recommend that the deleted statement be promptly restored. -hh (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My own experience with horse-collars is very limited; for some years I dived with no BC at all, as was normal for us in those days, then I went straight to the early style jacket with over-the-shoulder bladder, and then to wings, with a few dives on the back-and-side-buoyancy stab jackets which I found less satisfactory than wings, so most of my dive are with wings. I did a few dives with horse-collars and didn't like them at all, though they do work as lifejackets better than the other styles, largely because they provide some neck support when fully inflated. The buoyancy was all in the wrong place underwater, as the air tends to fill behind the neck first. I have several wings, and have used them with a large range of cylinders, from twin 6litre 300bar steel to Al 80s, and they can tilt you forwards or backwards when fully inflated at the surface depending on the wing and cylinder combination, weight distribution, and to a lesser extent, the suit. Most of my diving is in the sea, and I used to do some long surface swims (up to 750m) on my back with fully inflated wings, and if I stopped and relaxed completely, I would rotate slightly face down if I was nicely trimmed for the dive. Most of these dives in 7mm neoprene or dry suit. It is a fairly complicated range of possibilities, with very little in the way of reliable references. The setup which would tilt me backwards was with a high density heavy twin set which was a pig underwater as it was always tending to roll face-up.
I have started a new article Diver trim which goes into the static stability with a bit of reference to the moments. You are all invited to take a look and point out any errors, as I have had to do a bit of guesstimating for things like centroid positions in the diagrams.
@-hh, I don't think that simply restoring the original text is appropriate as it was over generalisation, but I will try to bring in more factors as mentioned above. If anyone has some decent references it would also help. The illustrations on the website Ilya linked are really poor quality and inaccurate, and are all shown in statically unstable positions.
@RexxS, Does your wing lift you high enough that if you head were to flop over when unconscious, your face would be clear of the water? That is quite a lot of reserve buoyancy. What weighting system do you use, and how is the weight distributed? Have you tried simulating unconsciousness with your rig? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter, thanks, I'll take a look & offer some comments....this is a challenge to try to keep the point sufficiently simple. FYI, my concern on 'restoration' is that the anonymous edit that started this was IMO purposeful sabotage for a specific agenda and they'll be back in another 6-18 months regardless of how well we refine this. FYI, I do agree that the 'face clear of the water?' question is a good one, as the mass of the human head is around 10lbs (4.5kg) which calls for a healthy bit of BC lift, which can be made worse (more) if due to the dynamics of bobbing in a surface chop, one wants additional 'freeboard' clearance. This situation gets made even worse when a diver goes "Poseur Tech" and gets rid of their snorkel. -hh (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment that leads to an improvement in the article has some value, and we all have our own specific agendas. Best we can ask is that they are in the interests of reasonably objective improvement of the project. I try to take them at face value until proven otherwise. Keeping the head out of the water is secondary to keeping the mouth and/or nose clear, which is easiest to accomplish lying back, but even a "real life jacket" is inadequate in driving spray and chop, which tends to blow straight into ones face, and where a mask and snorkel can be a life saver for someone who is conscious and able to use them effectively. Those who consider a snorkel useless have never been on the surface at sea in a squall. I look forward to your comments. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, I do have a fair amount of reserve buoyancy, principally because I sometimes carry quite negatively buoyant steel stages - I would have to rig those to see what effect they would have on my buoyancy at the surface. In normal use, my usual cylinders are twin 10-litre 300 bar "dumpy" steels, which are very negatively buoyant and carried quite low on my back, and my drysuit is a crushed neoprene DUI which has a fairly consistent positive buoyancy. It's not unusual for me to dive without a weight-belt with that combination. As you can envisage, the weight of the cylinders and the buoyancy of the suit tend to keep me quite vertical on the surface - with the wings fully inflated (as they would be following an unconscious ascent) I have to make a positive effort to get my face into the water and it won't stay there. I can't guarantee I'd remain clear of the water in extremely rough conditions, but I'm unlikely to be diving in force 4's or worse anyway! --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

Peter, here's my copyediting comments/suggestions:

RE: '*A harness that the diver wears with straps around the torso and over the shoulders. A crotch strap may be included to prevent the harness from sliding towards the head when the diver is upright and the bladder is inflated.'

Comment --> This describes what it is, but not really its function, which is to transfer buoyant lift from the BC's bladder onto the diver-as-a-sytem. I also suggest that it be elevated to be under the prior all BCs have section, because a BC that isn't attached to a diver floats away.

For wording, suggest:

'*A mechanical attachment between the BC and the diver, for incorporating the bladder's lift forces (buoyancy). The BC is typically secured to a diver's torso, either with dedicated straps or as part of a multifunctional system incorporating other dive equipment functions such as for supporting tank(s), adding weights, pockets, etc, which serves to minimize how many discrete straps & buckles are present. BC attachment solutions generally try to minimize the shifting of the BC as a result of the lifting forces, with a design challenge on minimizing a BC from sliding towards the head when the diver is upright while the bladder is inflated: approaches to minimize have included the cummerbund (a waist strap) and the crotch strap (a strap between the legs), both of whose degrees of success and comfort have been debated.

FYI, I had some wording challenges in the above. For example, because a horsecollar BC doesn't have any shoulder straps, we can't quite claim shoulder straps as a universal attribute. Similarly, the cummerbund is an alternative design to the crotch (or submarine) strap...even if it doesn't work as well.

(End for now. Looking at the === Adjustable buoyancy life jacket === and sections following next ...) -hh (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -hh, I have made changes similar in overall content to your suggestion, but have split them up, so that the attachment system as you so rightly suggest goes in the features common to all BCs. I have kept the crotch strap in the additional features, and added cummerbund there, but only as mentions. I have put the explanation and comparison in the Vest BC section as it is mainly there that they are alternative options - I have never seen a cummerbund on a backplate and wing or horsecollar. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rewording/reorganization...it looks good.
FYI, on the question of where cummerbunds are/aren't used, they are indeed present on some Wing BCDs (example: ScubaPro Knighthawk). Yes, this isn't a product with a metal backpack (BP/W system), but what this really highlights is an entire discussion in of itself: the traditional Horsecollar, Jacket and Wing nomenclatures refers strongly to the location of the BC's bladder (and its subsequent lifting force) on the diver, which functionally marks this naming convention as primarily a system design attribute. The attribute of bladder location does not logically have a strict dependency on what materials are used in its attachment system (although some have been more common than others): for example, there have been Wing systems with metal backplates, plastic backpacks and even soft backpack systems. IMO, when thinking of Wings today, we generally just think of BP/W and ignore the others...even though ScubaPro probably sells more Knight-/Lady-Hawk BCDs than Halycon sells BP/W's.
There's probably a bigger meta question here, as we can choose to describe BCDs based first on its bladder location and then the rest of its attributes, or we can consider if we want to start with something else...for example, possibly an integrated versus non-integrated design approach? Or an organization by hard backpack vs soft backpack, which could then also discuss sidemounts. Each option has its advantages/disadvantages to ponder, as there's hybrids plenty. FYI, I won't claim that this is a foolproof rule of thumb, but if the backpack is made out of metal, it will be have a crotch strap, whereas if the backpack is made out of plastic, it will employ a cummerbund instead ... and regardless of its bladder location (Jacket or Wing), the latter is probably also a more integrated system too. -hh (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It gets complicated, doesn't it? My own leaning is that a logical split is primarily by buoyancy distribution, then by structural attributes, which is more or less what we have now. The minimalist sidemount harnesses are still back inflation, but somewhat different in detail. Almost every combination has probably been made at some time. I have a low volume wing without backplate (it uses the single cylinder for structure, and is held on by two cambands, and it has an integrated weight system and a crotch strap. Take the cylinder and cambands off and it is a reasonable sidemount rig. Not a unique arrangement, as I have friends with similar rigs, but certainly not mainstream, and almost sure to offend someone who thinks he knows why it shouldn't be done this way. It has the advantage of being small and light and compact, and pretty versatile, which is handy for travelling. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is one of those topics in that the more that you know about it, the more complications become evident. My preference is also for defining primarily based on buoyancy distribution, which carries with it that recreational-centric Wing style BCDs will be logically grouped with the more typically Tech-centric BP/W hardware. Just wanted to make this grouping decision to be explicit in these discussions. -hh (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem is what to call the BCs with side or front buoyancy. ABLJ/Horsecollar and Back inflation are clear enough. The other one (two? three?) is more tricky.
Vest and Jacket are reasonable and in common use, but do those names include or exclude back inflation? They all have some back buoyancy. Wraparound is reasonably descriptive, but not generally used. Also should we split the jacket type which has the side buoyancy continuous with the lower back buoyancy from the over the shoulder buoyancy which has no connection across the sides. Also what about a vest which has over the shoulder and continuous bladder across the sides? I am not even sure they exist, but think they probably did. Any suggestions? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should try to keep the commonly used terms; insofar as trying to identify the key differentiator, I'd say that since this gets associated into trim for surface floats that a promising approach would be to look to see where their centroid of lift is...in a nutshell, all horsecollars have their centroid in front of the diver, all wings have their centroid behind (behind the spine) and everything else is figuratively in between, ie, a centroid location which would be calculated to be inside the diver. FWIW, if we rotate the diver to a horizontal frame of reference, this approach doesn't change: the horsecollar is still "in front" the diver's chest, the wing is "on top" but still on the other side of the spine and the rest are still somewhere between (ie, 'inside' the diver). -hh (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Buoyancy compensator (diving)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Buoyancy compensator (diving). I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buoyancy compensator (diving). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buoyancy compensator (diving). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 20:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

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.
    2. Mostly OK, but could use a few more citations.
  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.
    3. Mostly covered, but could use some copyediting and maybe a bit of restructuring. Looks OK now checkY
  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.

    4. Looks OK checkY
  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.

    5. Looks OK checkY
  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.

    6. Adequately illustrated checkY However a photo of a dedicated pony bottle fitted to a BC would be nice if one can be found.
  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.

    7. Looks OK checkY

Orphaned references in Buoyancy compensator (diving)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Buoyancy compensator (diving)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bardy2005":

  • From Scuba diving: Bardy, Erik; Mollendorf, Joseph; Pendergast, David (21 October 2005). "Thermal conductivity and compressive strain of foam neoprene insulation under hydrostatic pressure". Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. 38 (20): 3832–3840. Bibcode:2005JPhD...38.3832B. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/38/20/009.
  • From Wetsuit: Bardy, Erik; Mollendorf, Joseph; Pendergast, David (October 21, 2005). "Thermal conductivity and compressive strain of foam neoprene insulation under hydrostatic pressure". Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. 38 (20): 3832–3840. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/38/20/009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Buoyancy_compensator_(diving)"