Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Decompression sickness/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Decompression sickness

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Timeline" section is written in bullet points. Instead, this section should be written in prose form to avoid it looking like a list. It also has an "expansion needed" orange banner: is this still valid? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what specific part of the GA criteria forbids bullet points for something like this. Sure it would probably look better as prose but I don’t think it is specifically apart of the criteria. I will look into the history section when I am able to. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IntentionallyDense: WP:GA? 1b states that articles should comply with Manual of Style guidelines for layout and list incorporation. MOS:PARA (part of layout) says "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose" and "[Lists] may be used in the body to break up a mass of text". In the timeline section, there is no prose for a timeline list to break up. MOS:EMBED states "Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content." However, it is not supplementing prose because there is no prose in that section. Lists are not forbidden, but prose is preferred and in this case I do not think this section justifies having only a list and instead it should be written as paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, “forbid” was harsh wording, i was tired and not thinking much and just wanted to hear your reasoning. While I do agree that yes, prose would look better here, for the sake of narrowing down any of the articles issues to just things that are directly apart of the GA criteria, MOS:PARA also states “ Sometimes, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead of having a series of very short paragraphs.” If we were to change the timeline into prose I suspect (i would have to look at some sources first to verify) that it would be very broken up and all over the place as medical timelines tend to be a couple big discoveries broken up by years of research that can look like years of no developments.
    Im curious about your thoughts on my interpretation and if that’s something you’re willing to work with. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at the "Timeline" section, and I think the biggest problem with the bullet points is that the entries sometimes do not explain the significance of the events. For example, "Charles Pasley, who was involved in the recovery of the sunken warship HMS Royal George, commented that, of those having made frequent dives, "not a man escaped the repeated attacks of rheumatism and cold". No context for this event or quote is given to reader, or how this contributed to the research/discovery/humanity's understanding of decompression sickness. Why is this event important enough to be in the article? If this section is expanded out into prose, the entry's significance can also be explained. I think it's OK for the section to have years of no discoveries: that is the nature of research and articles should focus on notable events. Another option might be to split the Timeline prose into themes: have a paragraph discuss the sickness's discovery, another about the development of technology to prevent it, and another to describe various changes to laws concerning decompression sickness. I don't know what might be the best format: it really depends on what information editors want to have together in the same paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the timeline needs a review for what is worth including and what isn't. I'm going to get together some information first and then we can worry about how to format that later. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so I removed the banner at the top of the timeline section as I couldn't find anything that was obviously missing for that timeframe. I've found two pretty good sources for the timeline section but they mostly cover pre 2000's history. Based on those sources, I suspect that some information could be removed as it is more relevant to the history of diving and less so to the history of the disease itself. I still have to gather the main points together but I wanted to update you. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this reassessment, and as the original main authors are no longer editing, and I am familiar with the topic, I would like to offer my assistance where I can. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few refs, a section summary and a bit of copy editing. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood To be on the safe side, the summary if the timeline should probably have inline citations, as far as the history section goes, I found these two articles to be the most helpful: [1][2]. The 1872 part of the timeline needs another citation, the bullet list at the end of prognosis needs citations, The Henry's law part needs a citation, and the table "Signs and symptoms of decompression sickness" needs sources. Did you add the expansion needed tag in the epidemiology section? if so can you give me some more information as to why. Thanks for your help! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added explicit ref tags to list items in prognosis where they were previously implied.
Yes, I added the expansion needed tag to epidemiology as it currently does not mention altitude decompression sickness. I do not know of sources, but there may be some somewhere. I do not suggest that the expansion is necessary for GA, just that it is desirable for completeness of coverage. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing i would suggest is first confirming that there is sources regarding the epidemiology of altitude DCS before adding the tag as if there is no sources there is no way to really expand that section (unless we can get someone to write the sources for us!). Technically speaking any cleanup banner can prevent a GA from keeping its status as a GA, so while they should still be added if needed, i tend to be a bit more cautious when adding them. Thanks again for all the help. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fairly safe bet that sources exist. What is less certain is whether they are accessible to you or to me. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are a few:
· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first couple sources seem okay (obviously not ideal but probably the best we have) however the last two are not compliant with WP:MEDRS. The only things that need to be fixed up are the lack of citations for the first paragraph in epidemiology and timeline. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the list of sources directly above? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Bend the truth with an FAA document already used in the article, and cited the lead to Timeline.
Dalebozik article is only used to support claim that high altitude parachutists and aircrew are at risk. Dalebozik is a technical expert on physiology relating to those exposures, so seems reasonable to cite. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think Dalebozik is appropriate for its use, but have added another source which mentions parachutists in passing. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph in epidemiology cited now · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I’m going to ping @Z1720 and ask them if they have any more concerns on the topic and we will see what they say! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 10:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no concerns or further comments about the Epidemiology section. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering moving the last paragraph of Decompression sickness#Ascent to altitude or exposure to a low ambient pressure to Decompression sickness#Epidemiology, as it seems to be mostly about that aspect, but would like your opinion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me a day or two I can probably get access to most of the sources. I’ll take a look at them later (probably tomorrow maybe tonight) and then get back to you. Other than that little bit that needs to be wrapped up, I think you’ve successfully saved this article from losing its GA status, congrats! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, standing by. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref for rest of 1872 timeline item. Unsurprisingly, same ref as first part sufficed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref to "the Henry's law part". · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref tag to table of symptoms. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological order can intrinsically provide context in that, for example, a treatment is normally sought after a condition has been identified and described, also frequently after a hypothesis for causation has been proposed. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rheumatism symptoms have significant overlap with DCS symptoms, and DCS was not recognised at the time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list supplements prose in other sections. Is there reason to claim this is unacceptable? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now it has a prose summary of the gist of the timeline. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, timeline articles and sections quite commonly use a list format as the information tends to be presented in chronological order by date, which makes use of the content relatively easy when one is interested in sequential events. When historical content is laid out as a narrative in prose form, it is less likely to be titled a timeline. While I hold no strong opinion on which format is better in this case, I think that a list format ordered by date is quite appropriate. Perhaps a short introductory summary paragraph would help? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any more citations you feel are needed, please indicate which content you think needs them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any further discussion or work required, or can this be closed? (last edited 13 August 2025) Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the nominator is satisfied and no other concerns have come forward I am going to close this as keep. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Decompression_sickness/1&oldid=1307269152"