Talk:Buddy breathing

Swimming Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Underwater diving High‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Buddy breathing (9 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,191	1,191
Technique	2,107	2,767
Training	660	660
Hazards	1,012	1,012
History	3,263	3,263
Alternatives	3,060	3,060
Avoidance	803	803
See also	234	234
References	3,899	3,899
Total	16,229	16,229

Request for images

If anyone has a nice photo of buddy breathing, please upload to commons and link here. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of a merge?

The article does not seem likely to expand much. Should it be merged with a redirect? If so, into what article? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the only thing I'd like to see added is the research indicating that the first technique learned often becomes the default response in panic situations, so buddy breathing should never be the first air-sharing technique taught. But I'd have to find the reference for that.

I looked through the list of articles linking to Buddy breathing and came up with these candidates for a merge:

Buddy diving - has a possibly suitable section, Provision of emergency breathing gas, but you'd have to look at the balance between buddy breathing and the Donating the primary/octopus sections (which are far more important, IMHO).
Diver rescue - relevant section would be Providing emergency gas, but it's an overview and a merge would give it WP:UNDUE weight, I think.
Scuba skills - in the section Emergency air sharing, there's a paragraph already that could be expanded. I'd still be concerned about UNDUE, though.
Recreational diver training - an overview article.

So, I think my recommendation would be to leave it where it is. The technique is not favoured by any agency that I'm aware of, and merging it into another article, especially at the same level as 'donating the primary/octopus' gives it more credibility than it deserves nowadays. At least within its own article, there's space to explain why it's a bad idea in general and at best considered as a last resort. --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, If you find that reference about default response, please let me know. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Looks OK 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. Probably OK, not a large topic. 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. Has structure, looks OK. 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. No problem. Y 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. Has a coup[le of appropriate illustrations. Would be improved by a photo of divers buddy breathing, but not urgent. 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. Acceptable. Y

Although quite small, it seems to fit the criteria, so I am promoting. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]