Talk:Mechanism of diving regulators

Suggestion

Not sure if this has been suggested before, but as long as this article is, what about splitting it into two articles - one that focuses on first stage regs, and the other 2nd stage regs? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree it is rather long, and splitting would help, but splitting 1st and 2nd stages leaves a bit of a problem with 1-stage regulators. What do you think of splitting out malfunctions to Diving regulator malfunctions or Diving regulator malfunctions and failure modes? The malfunctions and failure modes section is about 32KB at present. so a split would reduce article size by about 25 to 30KB and the new article would be somewhere around 35 to 40KB Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

2 years later. Possibly, but over the past few years, I've met more than my share of widows who lost their husbands to rebreather mishaps, one of whom I met just last month. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Diving rebreather malfunctions and failure modes would also be a legitimate title, to be split off some day from Diving rebreather. There is a lot of scope. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I will probably do this split when I get around to it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

B-class review

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. Fairly well referenced, and I doubt any of the unreferenced stuff would be considered controversial, though possibly some of it might be considered a bit obscure. 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. Coverage fairly comprehensive. Nothing important missing that I am aware of. Y 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. Complies. Structurally adequate. Y 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. 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. Has decent illustrations and photos. Y 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. Reasonable considering it is a fairly technical topic. If anyone has a problem, let me know and I can clarify. Y

Promoting to B-class · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)