Talk:Buddy breathing

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)

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)

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)

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

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buddy breathing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 01:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 09:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Shall review as part of the GA section obliteration gang IAWW (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

What is GA section obliteration gang? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Just a name I made up as a group of reviewers are working together to clear the Recreation section reviews. IAWW (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood I found few issues on the spot check. Details in the spot check section. IAWW (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Just realized I haven't looked at the lead yet. I'll do that now. IAWW (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

The lead could do with some expansion to summarize the whole article. The "History", "Alternatives" and "Avoidance" sections are not summarized at all, and I think informations like:

• "about 20 successful repetitions of buddy breathing during training of entry level students are needed for a reasonable expectation of success without errors"
• "Buddy breathing is one of the few scuba diving procedures in which the incompetence of one diver can endanger the life of another"

are important enough to be included. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Referred to the necessity for much practice and risk to buddy. Is that sufficient? Details remain available in the body text, and I think that level of detail may be a bit undue for the lead. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. The three mentioned non-summarized sections do need to be summarized though. IAWW (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

There are mentions of content from those sections in the lead already. If you think more is necessary, please be specific. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing from the history section when I wrote that comment but there is now and I think it is good. I don't think mentions of the specific alternatives are necessary for GA, so I think the lead is ready and I can pass this. Apologies for the long review, partly caused by natural disagreement and partly my slowness, and thanks for being so responsive during the review. See you round. IAWW (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Purpose

as a response to an out-of-air scuba diving emergency: Clarity nitpick: I suggest either using only "out-of-air" or "out-of-gas" for use throughout the article, or clarifying that they mean the same thing. IAWW (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair comment, I will look into it Air is used in the older sources as it was the only gas used for many years for open circuit scuba, and the most usual gas for buddy breathing before it was generally deprecated. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, you can handle this how you please IAWW (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Most divers, and many others, will understand that gas is a broader term which includes air, but it is probably worth clarifying for the reader who does not find that obvious. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It may occur with very little warning, and requires prompt and appropriate response of restoring access to safe breathing gas while it is possible: WP:CINS error IAWW (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

How so? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"requires prompt and appropriate response of restoring access to safe breathing gas while it is possible" is not an independent sentence so the connective preceding it ("and" in this case) should not have a comma before it. IAWW (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It may occur with very little warning, and requires prompt and appropriate response of restoring access to safe breathing gas while it is possible, which implies either reaching the atmospheric free surface after an emergency ascent, where air is available in unlimited amounts, or to quickly gain access to some other source of suitable breathing gas while underwater before terminating the dive: This complex sentence being punctuated by nothing but commas makes it hard to parse. I suggest splitting into two sentences at the ", which", because it's hard to tell what that modifies. IAWW (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I split the sentence, but not sure that it helps much. It is the requirement for prompt and appropriate response of restoring access to safe breathing gas that implies the need for one of the various options. because without breathing gas the diver will asphyxiate or drown, and if the breathing gas is not safe some other problem is likely. A breathing gas is safe only for a limited range of depths. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I find it much clearer to read now it is split up a bit. IAWW (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to know that it is clearer to you. With luck that will be helpful to other readers too. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

only uses the most basic scuba equipment: Could you be a bit more precise here? What constitutes "basic" is up for interpretation unless it has a tightly defined meaning within the field. IAWW (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, fair request. Divers will know that the most basic scuba is a single cylinder with a single regulator and a single demand valve/mouthpiece. The reader may not be a scuba diver, so I will clarify. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Added a footnote to clarify. As far as I know the meaning is fairly tightly defined, but not everyone will know it, so a note is justified. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks good IAWW (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Out-of-gas incidents most commonly due to poor gas management: I think you meant to put "occur" in here? IAWW (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

expending too much effort, and not sufficiently monitoring gas consumption, but can also be caused by equipment failure leading to gas loss from leaks or free-flows: WP:CINS errors on the "and" and "but" connectives IAWW (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Not sufficiently monitoring gas consumption is a necessary condition for the preceding errors to cause a problem, and they are not the only possible causes, hence the but. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this is a matter of comma usage which does not affect the meaning of the statement, and is unlikely to confuse the reader, based on an essay? I am an engineer, I last studied English grammar in about 1971, and it would have been British English and South African English, and I don't remember this rule. If you feel that such details are worth changing, please go ahead and do so. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a clear cut grammar issue, so I think this is relevant to Criterion 1a: "spelling and grammar are correct". The essay linked just serves to explain the issue, not as a basis/justification for the point. Rather than fixing it myself, I raised it here because I don't think it's too hard to understand and if you learn how to not do it, further issues are prevented in the future. I guess it's somewhat based on the philosophy that GA reviews are a good opportunity for reviewers and nominators to learn a thing or two, while improving the article.

On the other hand, I'm more than happy to fix these myself if you would prefer so I will go ahead and do that for these errors and for other grammar errors that occur in this article. I for sure don't want to discourage engineers from writing GAs just because they don't have perfect grammar skills; in my opinion Wikipedia needs a lot more engineers than grammarians right now. IAWW (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You may be right. I think it will save some time and effort from both of us if you make minor grammar fixes like these yourself. If I disagree I will let you know. In other cases cases I probably not care either way, or I might not see the point and ask you to explain, because, as you say, it is a learning experience for us all. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good I'll do that IAWW (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Technique

Could you add a page number/range to [10]? It's practically impossible to verify without that. IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Is that the BSAC Manual reference? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If it is the BSAC manual it has been used for several statements. To give a page number I need to know which one/s you mean. Two now have page numbers. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes sorry I should have been more specific. I think it's necessary to add page numbers to all the citations to that manual, to make verification realistically possible. IAWW (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is worse than that. There are several editions of BSAC manual, I think the wrong one got referenced a couple of times. I have now fixed that · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think "twin-hose regulator" should be linked. IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It is linked in lead paragraph, but could link again if you think it will hekp · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, somehow I missed this. IAWW (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you link or add a note explaining what a "purge button" does? IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Linked, does that work for you? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes thanks IAWW (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

air consumption while buddy breathing is usually more than double the normal rate: Could you reword clarify whether each diver uses double the air they normally would, or it is double because is it accommodating two divers? IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Good point, will take a look · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarified. Two divers plus stress. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good IAWW (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The standard way of preventing this was to require the diver to be constantly blowing bubbles from the mouth when not actively inhaling, which keeps the airway open. The rate of bubble blowing, however, should not be so high as to leave no air to purge the demand valve before taking the next breath: This switches tense halfway through. I'm guessing consistent present tense would be better since buddy breathing is probably still used somewhere/sometimes? IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, will fix. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Is an FFM a "full-face mask"? If so, clarify this. IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, done. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

wearers carry an alternative gas source with a standard DV for gas sharing: Is this because regulations require it? If so, I suggest stating that. Also, I think any acronyms like "DV" should be defined like "Demand valve (DV)" on first use IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It is required by regulations or code of practice in some places, but the main reason is that if one wants to be able to share gas, which is not always the case, that is how it can be done. There are other ways that require special equipment carried by both divers, like the low pressure hose cross connections used by firefighters with SCBA, and they may be used by some divers - possibly from fire department rescue diving teams - where they will be familiar equipment, but I don't have a source. There are also proprietary systems for scuba for plug-in DVs which allow alternative gas supplies to specific FFM models, but I do not have a source that says the are for buddy breathing.

I have defined DV at first use as suggested. Good catch. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy with all this thanks IAWW (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

What is "SCBA equipment"? IAWW (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Self contained breathing apparatus. Scuba is a special case for self contained underwater breathing apparatus. SCBA often implies not for underwater use, because it the term that firefighters and industrial users use. I will add a link. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, very interesting and good to know IAWW (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Linked. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Training

This is a higher level of training than provided by most recreational diver training organisations: I think it's necessary to make it clear this was in 1992. IAWW (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Why? The level of training of emergency procedures provided for recreational diving certification by most recreational training agencies has not changed significantly since 1992. There have been some changes in the actual procedures trained, like eliminating buddy breathing, but the statement quoted remains relevant and accurate · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I interpreted the text as referring to training for buddy breathing specifically, which I think is reasonable given how it is currently worded and placed after discussing buddy breathing specifically. If you mean to discuss training for all emergency procedures I think that should be a lot clearer. Also, saying "the level of training of emergency procedures provided for recreational diving certification by most recreational training agencies has not changed significantly since 1992" is original research if you can't find a study to support it. IAWW (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Buddy breathing is no longer part of the training standards for WRSTC, and as far as I remember has never been a requirement of the ISO standards. It has been dropped in favour of safer and more effective alternatives. A few organisations may still require competence for professionals, and it is trained at some commercial diving schools, but I lack references to support that at present. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It does refer specifically to the training for buddy breathing, which is no longer trained by most recreational training agencies, so the amount of training required currently is approximately zero for most recreational training agencies. I cannot say tha there are no recreational instructors currently training buddy breathing as they may be allowed to do so by the agency, as training standards specify minimum training and competence. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hazards

though it remains a critical operation if there is a decompression obligation: Could this be reworded to make it a bit clearer and less technical? I'm not entirely sure what a decompression obligation is. IAWW (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

A decompression obligation is a theoretical physiological necessity to do specific decompression stops during the ascent, which require fairly accurate depth control to remain at or below the decompression stop depth or decompression ceiling. I can explain this in as much detail as may be necessary if you think it remains in scope. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have linked decompression obligation. If it is not enough, let me know. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

A link is definitely sufficient. I didn't realize it had a precise technical meaning. IAWW (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The use of secondary demand valves and bailout cylinders make buddy breathing unnecessary: This seems to repeat information in later sections, and it doesn't seem relevant to this section ("Hazards"). IAWW (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair comment, I have removed the statement. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The risk of regulator freeze in cold water is increased when the flow rate from a regulator is increased by two people using it, but this is not unique to buddy breathing, and is also a hazard of octopus breathing: It's unclear whether you mean it is a hazard of many procedures, or whether you mean it is unique to octopus and buddy breathing only. IAWW (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I will look into making it clearer. It is a hazard in cold water (below about 14 degrees C). It is a greater risk when the water is colder, when the instantaneous flow rate is higher, when the total flow is greater, when the cylinder pressure is higher, and when the regulator is not designed for cold water use. Several procedures can increase the risk as they may cause a greater flow rate or more flow, and buddy breathing, octopus breathing, and DV purging or free flow are procedures and incidents which are well known to trigger regulator freezing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have made a small change which may help clarify. Let me know if you need more. I hesitate to add what may be considered unnecessary detail. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I like what you did. I reworded it a little for clarity, let me know if you have any issues with what I did. IAWW (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No problem. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

History

By the mid-1960s the availability of submersible pressure gauges: Was this increased availability or was it the first time they were available at all?

I have no references that mention this, but my understanding of the technology is that if there had been a demand, they would have been available. The technology of bourdon tube gauges was well established, and high-pressure hoses were available, but there were no high-pressure ports on the regulators to which they could be fitted (Fred Roberts: Basic Scuba shows exploded views of most scuba regulators on the market in the early 1960s, and none show auxiliary ports). In the early days when SPGs were a new thing, some were ported from the cylinder valve and some from the regulator, but it soon became standard to port them from the regulator. This is a situation where I can only report what I have been able to find in the sources - it is before my time as a diver. I can't say they were or were not available, That would really be OR, but I doubt it.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I found a reasonably reliable ref that says SPGs were generally commercially unavailable before 1961 · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. Could you find any independent reliable evidence that Alec Peirce has sufficient experience to be used as a reference? IAWW (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

He is not just saying that is when SPGs became available, he shows plausible evidence. Did you notice that in his video he shows an example of the relevant item and a dated advertisement from a print magazine showing the same item? It is possible that he is mistaken, as it is always possible that a source is mistaken, but it is highly improbable. Whether or not Alec Pierce is personally recognised as an expert on his topic is secondary to the evidence he produces to support his claim, which is pretty solid. The corroborating evidence of lack of places to attach the SPG to regulators of that vintage is helpful too. Do you have some evidence that suggests he is wrong?

What kind of evidence would you accept regarding the sufficiency of his experience, and what experience would you consider sufficient? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

That's fine for sure, I didn't watch the whole video to find where the claim was supported (a timestamp would help) IAWW (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

or to the left when side by side: I'm struggling to visualize this. If they are side by side, wouldn't ofsetting to the left mean they are just further apart? IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The hose enters the DV body on the right side, the exhaust drains when at the bottom, so the hose must be on the right side of the diver to allow the exhaust to drain water. If the divers need to swim any distance horizontally or at a flattish angle, they have to swim side by side while sharing gas. For a vertical ascent, they can swim face to face, but most people find it uncomfortable and stressful to swim face up while buddy breathing, as water tends to get in the mouth. Do I need to explain this in the article? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand all that but the text still doesn't make sense to me. I'm watching this video for reference and I understand the side-by-side part, though I think "offset" is the wrong word, but I don't see how offsetting to the right would help? Maybe the issue is the word "offset" here because there is no clear positional reference point. IAWW (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Position is relative to the donor. In front and to the right, or to the left if moving with significant horizontal component. How would you put it? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I changed it slightly to "made it necessary for the recipient to stay on the donor’s left when swimming side by side, or offset slightly to the right when facing them" to avoid the possible misinterpretation of the offset being in addition to the left position, which was the main cause of my confusion. Let me know if you have any issues with this rewording IAWW (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Your change is basically fine, but you left the old text in, which became redundant so I removed it. Should be good now. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

In the video you were watching the divers are using long (2m) hose tech rigs. The standard hose length used by recreational divers is shorter, about 0.7m, and brings the divers closer together, and is easier with them a little laterally offset, not directly opposite each other, as it puts less reverse bend in the hoses for the same separation, and reduces the need to put the donor's hand across their body. The lead illustration shows this slight lateral offset. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 21:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for explaining IAWW (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The only thing left is the spot check which I will do ASAP IAWW (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

OK fine, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The standard procedure of continuous exhalation during ascent to avoid lung over-pressure injury could leave the diver with insufficient air to clear the regulator, so it was necessary to hold the DV in a way that did not obstruct the recipient from accessing the purge button, as the single-hose demand valve would not normally free flow when raised above the head: The way this is connected ("... so ... as ...") presents both the part before "so" and the part after "as" as reasons why it is necessary to hold the DV in that way. Is this intended? If so, could you make that clearer/more explicit? If not, could you fix up the connectives? I hope this is a clear explanation, it comes off as grammatically intense because I am trying to be precise about how this confuses me, but really I just want it to be clearer in any way possible. IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand your question. If you rearrange the sentence to The standard procedure of continuous exhalation during ascent to avoid lung over-pressure injury could leave the diver with insufficient air to clear the regulator, as the single-hose demand valve would not normally free flow when raised above the head, so it was necessary to hold the DV in a way that did not obstruct the recipient from accessing the purge button: the meaning is the same. Would that help? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is much clearer thanks IAWW (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

would not normally free flow when raised above the head: If possible, could you use a less techinical term than "free flow", or explain/like to what "free flow" means? Also, why would the DV be raised above the head? IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I will link freeflow if it has not already been done. The term refers to a flow of gas from the mouthpiece in the absence of the user inhaling to produce a pressure drop. A freeflow can be induced in a twin hose regulator by lifting the mouthpiece above the regulator diaphragm which senses the pressure difference and opens the valve. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I had already linked freeflow. Two accepted alternative spellings free-flow and free flow were also used in the article but not linked. I have standardised on freeflow. The term is to a large extent self-explanatory - it describes a uninterrupted flow of gas. In this context, where that would not normally occur. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely fine. Thanks for standardising IAWW (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would find it helpful to repeat a link to clarify, go ahead, my opinion is that it can save a lot of confusion to link wherever it is useful, not just the first time a term is used. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The use of a secondary (octopus) second stage or a bailout cylinder removes the necessity for this complex and relatively stressful procedure: Was the the octopus introduced at this time? Something needs to be added to this sentence to make it relevant to the history section, rather than just repetition of what is stated later in the alternatives section. IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Octopus was introduced before buddy breathing was phased out, specifically as a more reliable and safer alternative to buddy breathing. For some time it was also referred to as buddy breathing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you add that this alternative was introduced around this time? To make it relevant to the narrative. IAWW (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

If there is a source of course IAWW (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The date of introducing the octopus is a point of disagreement among historians of scuba diving. They also disagree on who invented it first. My personal opinion is that it is a fairly obvious development, so probably occurred independently, but I have no reliable source for any of these possibilities. It could be connected with the introduction of multiple low pressure ports, but there are other things that also use them (LP inflators for dry suits and BCDs) so in the absence of compelling evidence, I say nothing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I can say from personal experience, that octopus regulators were rare, possibly unknown in South Africa in 1983, and in fairly common use among instructors in about 1985/6, so they had been around long enough to be familiar and some statistics to be available at the time of Brylske's article, and that the article content would not have been controversial at the time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay great thanks lets just leave as is IAWW (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

a better option was available at a reasonable cost: Was this the octopus? If so, could you make that clear. IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The octopus is the most widely used and lowest priced of the better options. I will see if I can make this more clear. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It's clearer now. IAWW (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Dive Training magazine ran an article by Alex Brylske in November 1993:

• I'd cut the name if he's not notable
• The high amount of detail on this article gives the impression that this was a major event in the history of buddy breathing. Can you provide a secondary source for that? If not, I think it should be mostly cut. IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I consider Alex Brylske notable in this context. The magazine re-ran the article some years later, mentioned in another ref, which suggests that the editor also considered it worth mention. The magazine editor Mark Young gave the impression that he considered the Brylske article a turning point in the training of buddy breathing, and I am inclined to agree. There is already a reference for this. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

There is an issue with neutrality with this ref, of course a magazine is going to say that their own articles were important turning points. Can you find an independent source? IAWW (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I have not claimed that it was an important turning point for this very reason, though based on the reputation of Alec Brylske at the time, I think it may have been. I don't see the whole thing as such a big deal though. Brylske wrote the article, he probably wasn't employed by the magazine, though I can't prove that. Soon thereafter the agencies moved away from buddy breathing, giving the same reasons Brylske mentions, If I ever find a completely independent source I will add it. The current content is factual, and until someone comes up with a better narrative that is how it stands. I do not consider it lacking in neutrality based on the available information. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this is too minor to quibble over so I'm happy to leave as is. IAWW (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Alternatives

These alternatives to buddy breathing also require substantial learning and reinforcement: Can you quantify "substantial" here? It's alright if not but it would be a great improvement. IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Difficult to quantify, as I do not know of a study that reports those details. From personal experience I can say it varies considerably between divers, some will get it right after one demonstration, and after five to ten confined water practices will probably get it right in a real situaton a few months later, others may take several tries to get it right at first, and forget it more quickly. Most of my teaching was professional divers, and we tried to get then to practice in open water on about ten occasions during a one month course if it came easily to them, more often if necessary. We also trained buddy breathing, but did not expect anyone to use it in a real situation as that all carries an octopus. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I am definitely happy for this to stay as is. IAWW (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

It is what the source says, so I just went with it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Avoidance

combined with a reasonable planned maintenance schedule: I think either be more precise or cut "reasonable" as too vague to be meaningful. IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Rec training agencies specify annual maintenance, as do many equipment manufacturers, as a minimum. Professional contractors may service more often, and personal experience tells me that if the regulator is not left to dry out service intervals can be extended as long as the equipment is properly tested before use. Manufacturers recommendations are often conditional, and there may be regulatory requirements. Planned maintenance requirements depend on circumstances of use and on the specific equipment. It is not always possible to be precise. Best I can do is leave it out. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks good IAWW (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Carrying a fully redundant emergency gas supply allows the diver to bail out independently of outside assistance if, in spite of all precautions, an emergency does occur: This is an alternative reather than a method of avoidance. Either cut or move to the alternatives section. IAWW (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

In what way is having an alternative to relying on someone else's assistance not a way of avoiding needing that help? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Well it doesn't avoid the emergency, which I thought was the point of the heading, but I see under a slightly different definition (avoiding air sharing procedures) it works so it can be left as is. IAWW (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The article is about buddy breathing, so avoidance of buddy breathing should be an obvious implied meaning. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources clock

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) clock

[3] is permanently dead and as such cannot be used to verify and statements it supports. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Added ref to cover. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The URL on [7] doesn't work to see the full text, but this journal has their archives freely available here, so a full text URL is available. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

replaced usurped url with working url to full text. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

A full text URL for [12] is available on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency site. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Not required, but definitely useful so added to ref. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes I should have put this in the suggestions section IAWW (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Reliability (Criterion 2b) clock

[5], [6], [13] and [10]: Can you find a better source than these self-published website articles? If not, can you demonstrate that these sources are sufficiently reliable per WP:RSSELF? IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Found one for [5] · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Same one is good for [6] but [6] also includes a regional variation. The information provided in these two sources is common knowledge to properly trained recreational diving instructors and is supposed to be known by properly trained entry level divers. This is not controversial content, and is available on many other sites, most of which are also published by groups which include licensed and competent diving instructors, who are usually recognised in the industry as competent to teach people on these topics.

Andy Davis [13] is a well known technical diving instructor and expert on rebreather diving, sidemount diving, equipment configuration and other aspects of scuba diving practice.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep that's fine I found some independent reliable sourcing confirming that too IAWW (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Heinerth [10] is published by DAN Southern Africa, not self published. Also a well known expert on technical, rebreather, and cave diving. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Definitely reliable I should have looked up Heinerth IAWW (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) clock

[6, 7a, 8a]: Don't support the quoted "chopping"

See [7a] captioned "Out of Air (BSAC) Move hand forward and down at 45 degrees." The arrow in the image clearly indicates two-way motion. I have also found a book reference (BS-AC training manual) which I will add.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I have now added ref named BSAC Manual which shows the chopping in an image on page 63 captioned "I have no more air The signal is made by moving the arm with the hand outstretched in and out from the throat..." The image shows what could reasonably be described as a chopping motion, as the edge of the hand is aligned towards the throat. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no issues with the word "chopping" as a paraphrase. It is indeed very appropriate, I have issue with the fact that it is quoted, because it is not a direct quotation. The quotation marks could just be removed to fix this issue. IAWW (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I see. I will change it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Done · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks IAWW (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Ref numbers based on this version.

[5b]: Y

[7a]: Y

[1e, 17]: Y

[21]: Y

[18]: Y

[9f]: Y

[9h]: I read the buddy breathing section and the conclusion section and skimmed the rest, but I couldn't find the supporting text. A page number would be helpful. IAWW (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you add page numbers for the references to the British Sub-Aqua Club Diving Manual? Since the book is over 200 pages long verification is not realistic without page numbers. IAWW (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Used separate ref with page number for an earlier edition, Have page numbers for the one BSAC manual, and similar for a third BSAC manual. Also added some refs from other books which referred to specific claims. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks that fully addresses my concern IAWW (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) clock

[1] has some WP:CLOP issues.

• Claiming copyright violation on [1] is stretching a point, but tweaked the text a bit anyway. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Note to self to check close paraphrasing with [7]

• Earwig does not work for me on this ref, so if you find something you think might be a copyvio, please be specific or I will be unable to do anything about it.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk):

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) clock

At least paragraphs 3 and 4 of the "Alternatives" section function as a WP:COATRACK for other emergency air sharing techniques.

[12] (used to support paragraph 4 of the "Alternatives" section) doesn't mention buddy breathing at all, which is a sure sign that original research is being done to relate it to this article's subject.

• Buddy breathing is a deprecated method of providing breathing gas in an out of gas emergency. [12] mentions current practice for providing breathing gas in an emergency, so it does not mention deprecated methods such as buddy breathing. Is this not clear from the context? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

[7] (used to support paragraphs 3 of the "Alternatives" section) performs some light comparisons between buddy breathing and other air sharing techniques, so it would be relevant to list some of those other techniques and maybe the comparisons between them and buddy breathing. Paragraph 3 does not do this so it is out of scope. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Sharing gas via a secondary demand valve is the standard technique taught by recreational diver training agencies. How is it out of scope? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Because the article title is "Buddy breathing", not "Air sharing techniques". Info is not relevant unless reliable sourcing directly relates it to buddy breathing, or if it is essential to understanding some other secondary sourced info about buddy breathing. IAWW (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Buddy breathing is a specific air/gas sharing technique used to avoid death by drowning/asphyxiation while underwater on scuba in the company of another scuba diver. The alternatives to buddy breathing are other air sharing techniques with another scuba diver, and other actions which are not air sharing techniques which can be used to avoid drowning if buddy breathing is not an option. I will explain this to clarify. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  That is true, and that is why they are out of scope for this article. Since the prose has changed a little, I'll be more specific in what I'm referring to and summarise my argument for clarity:

  The generally accepted method for sharing breathing gas by recreational scuba divers is by using a second demand valve, often called an "octopus", fitted to the diving regulator, for emergency use by another diver. Some go so far as to recognise that the out-of-air diver will want the demand valve they are breathing off at the time, as it is indisputably providing breathing gas, and almost certainly a gas suitable for the current depth. These practice "donating the primary" in recognition of this tendency, and often use an extra-long hose (up to 7 feet (2.1 m) long) to facilitate the procedure in tight spaces. These divers often wear the secondary demand valve on a "necklace" which keeps it ready for immediate use under the diver's chin, where it can be retrieved for use without the use of the hands. The secondary demand valve may be mounted on the primary regulator first stage or on a secondary regulator first stage when a manifolded twin cylinder or single cylinder with double outlet cylinder valve is used. Divers doing deep diving, cave or wreck penetration, or decompression stops may routinely carry a complete, independent bailout scuba set for their own or their buddy's emergency use. This is particularly prevalent in professional diving operations where it is often mandatory. Where a full-face mask is used, an emergency gas supply provided by a standby diver can be connected to the regulator on the mask by quick-connection couplings on the low pressure hoses.

  These in depth explanations of alternatives to buddy breathing are out of scope of this article and function as WP:COATs. The relevance they have to buddy breathing is the fact that they are alternatives, which can be included, but any information beyond that is overly detailed and thus fails criterion 3b of the GA criteria. The information would be relevant elsewhere, such as in an article about out-of-air emergency techniques, but not here. Thus I would be looking to replace the paragraph with something like Alternatives to buddy breathing include a variety of procedures involving use of a secondary demand valve, and use of an independent bailout scuba set for their own or their buddy's emergency use.

  I am happy to bit this up for third opinion if you disagree? I will defer to whatever the 3O thinks. IAWW (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  So your objection is basically that there is too much detail? I will trim it down. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have removed what I think you would consider unnecessary detail, and merged and condensed parts of the various paragraphs in the section to reduce redundancy and provide a more logical order. I think the section is improved and clearer, but take a look for yourself, and let me know if it needs further tweaking.

  If you need a third opinion on anything Atsme is probably a good choice for this topic, but there are also a few others listed on WP:WikiProject Underwater diving · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for your work on this section. I think it looks better than before. Unfortunately I still think the section still strays from the article subject of buddy breathing in places. For example the paragraph

  Divers who would not be able to make a direct ascent to the surface may routinely carry a complete, independent bailout scuba set for their own or their buddy's emergency use. This is particularly prevalent in professional diving operations where it is often mandatory. Where a full-face mask is used, an emergency gas supply provided by a buddy or standby diver can be connected to the regulator on the mask by quick-connection couplings on the low pressure hoses

  does not discuss buddy breathing at all, and neither do any of the sources this paragraph is referenced to. Therefore including this information in the article is a form of original research as no sources directly tie it to the subject matter. The objection can also be phrased as "too much detail", scope issues or COATRACK issues, but I think they mostly boil down to it being a form of original research.

  I would like to emphasise that I believe this is a precisely defined issue, not just my subjective opinion as to what I believe is overdetail. @Atsme, if you have the time, I would appreciate if you could check my argument is sound. IAWW (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  This is where I must disagree. The procedures mentioned are all recognised as better and safer alternatives to buddy breathing by experts in the field of scuba diving, and the section is titled Alternatives, therefore these procedures are relevant in this section. To divers this is not a controversial matter, though there are differences of opinion as to which are the best choice for any given situation, and over details in the precise execution of the procedures. Suggesting that it is original research does not take into account that they are mentioned and recommended by most, possibly all training agencies as as methods of preventing the same consequences that the now deprecated procedure of buddy breathing was intended to prevent, in the event of precisely the same adverse event, namely an out of air incident.

  I assume that you understand that the alternatives are alternatives to buddy breathing, as alternative techniques of buddy breathing are discussed elsewhere in the content.

  You state that this is a precisely defined issue. Could you then quote the precise definition of the issue, as I think what we have here is a failure to communicate, and I am unsure of why.

  Out of interest, what would you consider alternatives to buddy breathing, and why would they be valid, and the ones currently mentioned, not? To the best of my knowledge, there are no other alternatives to buddy breathing that result in survival of the diver. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate you pushing back rather than just changing it because I/the reviewer wants you to. Hopefully we can meet eye to eye. I'll reply to each part of what you said so hopefully we can get to the crux of our disagreement fast.

  The procedures mentioned are all recognised as better and safer alternatives to buddy breathing by experts in the field of scuba diving: If a reliable source specifically mentions a procedure as an alternative to specifically buddy breathing, then it is definitely relevant and I see no issue including it. This is why I have no issue with the last paragraph.

  therefore these procedures are relevant in this section: Unless a reliable source says specifically that they are alternatives to buddy breathing, presenting them as such is original research, not matter how uncontroversial it is. WP:OR says "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". This idea fits perfectly into that category.

  Suggesting that it is original research does not take into account that they are mentioned and recommended by most, possibly all training agencies as as methods of preventing the same consequences that the now deprecated procedure of buddy breathing was intended to prevent, in the event of precisely the same adverse event, namely an out of air incident.: I don't disagree with this reasoning, it seems perfectly obvious, but it is still original research unless we can find an RS that says as such.

  I assume that you understand that the alternatives are alternatives to buddy breathing, as alternative techniques of buddy breathing are discussed elsewhere in the content.: Yes and to go further, I think the alternative techniques of buddy breathing are fully relevant as reliable sources tie them specifically to the article subject, buddy breathing.

  You state that this is a precisely defined issue. Could you then quote the precise definition of the issue, as I think what we have here is a failure to communicate, and I am unsure of why.: I hope my second response above sufficiently provides this? I tried to write as succinctly as possible and quote straight from the guideline.

  Out of interest, what would you consider alternatives to buddy breathing, and why would they be valid, and the ones currently mentioned, not?: As soon as a reliable source specifically mentions it as an alternative to buddy breathing I consider it valid for inclusion in the article.

  Sorry for the wall of text, feel free to just hone in on a few points – I feel some of the information is repeating between them anyways. If Atsme weighs in in the next few days that would be great. If not and we still would benefit from a 3O, I'll put it up for 3O on the GAN page. IAWW (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  OK. I think I follow your argument, you do not know the common knowledge things that almost all scuba divers should know, so you want me to join the dots from buddy breathing to each one of the alternatives. As it happens, I lived through many of these developments and can provide a paper trail, though for historical reasons it will not necessarily be a direct A->B, and is likely to be somewhat tedious.

  Can we start with recognising that buddy breathing is a) a procedure, b) used by scuba divers, c) under water, d) to avoid drowning, when e) they have an out of gas emergency?

  And that "alternatives to buddy breathing" are a') other procedures than buddy breathing, b) used by scuba divers, c) under water, d) to avoid drowning, when e) they have an out of gas emergency?

  Also, that f) some alternatives may involve the intervention of another diver, and that g) some may not?

  If you reject any of these premises, please state which, and why they are not acceptable to you.

  Then, let us establish if there are any alternatives you already accept, and list them, so I don't have to prove those ones to you, which could save us both some time and effort. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  It is a wonderful world, You have not replied to this yet as far as I can see. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think the relevance of this info rests on the assumption I disagreed with below? That's why I didn't respond, but let me know if I missed something. IAWW (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not really, The assumption you rejected relates to possible argument strategies, but the two questions are independent. The question above attempts to identify exactly what part of the meaning of "alternatives to buddy breathing is disputed, as it appears that Atsme and I see it one way and perhaps you do not. It may be a matter of terminology use. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I certainly see all the alternatives listed in the article as valid alternatives to buddy breathing, so I think I agree with you there. I think the only place we differ is that I think the act of judging whether they are alternatives is OR, which you and Atsme do not. IAWW (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just to reiterate, I'm happy to ignore this "issue" as there is consensus that it is not an issues. So I have no problems with keeping the alternatives section including this information. IAWW (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  As an aside, I will mention that an AI query will agree with me, and provide assorted dubious evidence to support its claims, but as we know they are about as unreliable as you can get and make up shit all the time, so I will not suggest that as a viable alternative. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Am I correct in assuming that you will accept reasoning of the form A->B and B->C. therefore A->C, and will not claim that A->C is original research? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hey @Pbsouthwood, apologies for delay in getting back to you here. I thought I could get this done before I went on holiday but that didn't end up happening. My activity will probably be relegated to once every few days but this review is my top priority. Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning further above.

  Am I correct in assuming that you will accept reasoning of the form A->B and B->C. therefore A->C, and will not claim that A->C is original research?: Unfortunately not, because this seems to be the definition of WP:SYNTH. Per the reasoning there I do still think it would be original research.

  However, since @Atsme provided a third opinion preferring to include the content I am happy for it to say, as I consider that consensus. WP:OR is not "non-negotiable" like WP:NPOV, so I believe it can be superseded by editor consensus.

  It is an interesting situation though, since the GA criteria specifically contain "no original research", so it seems extremely wrong for me to pass this as GA when I think it contains original research. Maybe the best solution for this article is to keep the info in the article but not pass for GA? I don't know if there is protocol for this situation, so I would like to ask at WT:GAN. Before I do so though, for clarity, I would like to ask whether you agree with Atsme's reasoning for keeping the info, even if it is OR,? And I would like to see if Atsme thinks it is OR too. IAWW (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your reservations as I have so far been unable to find a source which specifically states what you consider is necessary. This does not mean that the claim is untrue or original research by any logical, non-Wikipedia definition, but you feel yourself constrained by the rules and do not choose to ignore them in these circumstances. There are a large number of other sources which have not been checked and which may not be accessible to us, so we cannot say that one does not exist, just that we have not been able to verify that content yet to your satisfaction.

  Atsme has considerable experience and knowledge of diving, and is perhaps overly modest, and concurs that the statements are widely accepted, therefore by normal (non-Wikipedia) definitions not original research. I do agree with Atsme's reasons, as it is necessary information for understanding the full context of buddy breathing, and leaving it out intentionally feels biased, so I am also conflicted. I will continue my search for a source.

  You are not obliged to pass the review as you clearly feel conflicted on this point. You can step back from the conflict with no hard feelings from me, or continue with the rest of the review, which may help to improve other aspects of the article. It is more important to me and the average reader that the article is of good quality, comprehensible and comprehensive than that it has the GA icon appended. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Pbsouthwood thanks for that clear summary of the situation. I fully agree with all you wrote. Thank you also for your patience with this review, it was a mistake to start this shortly before going on holiday, but I am back now and should be able to work on this almost every day until it is finished.

  I personally think this is light OR by Wikipedia's definition, and I don't think any OR should really be on Wikipedia at all. However @Atsme kindly indicated that they don't think this is OR, which means there is consensus against it being OR. In my eyes that consensus overrides any personal opinion I may have even though I am the reviewer.

  Thankfully that means I can continue with this review. I have pretty much a full Saturday free tomorrow so comments on all the other criteria will follow shortly. IAWW (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Which other air sharing techniques are you referring to? I thought they were all already mentioned. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  The phrase "other air sharing techniques" was just intended to refer to techniques that are not buddy breathing, whether or not they have already been mentioned. IAWW (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  See my explanation at the previous point. As far as I am aware, all of the relevant alternative methods of avoiding drowning have been mentioned, and probably wikilinked. Some of them are air/gas sharing techniques,with another diver, others are independent actions. I will check again. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't find any more. If you know of any I missed please let me know. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 00:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Got your ping - I understand the need to avoid excessive detail, especially for quick-reference topics. However, in life-and-death scenarios like buddy breathing, extra information can save lives. An encyclopedia should serve all divers, not just beginners taking quick PADI courses. Most new divers may only read the lead, but adding alternative methods like carrying an extra tank and regulator isn’t overkill—it’s expected for a comprehensive resource. Unlike quick answers on Reddit or Quora, we’re writing for advanced divers, instructors, and dive teams too. Including proven alternatives informs and protects readers, enhancing the article’s value without losing focus. Atsme 💬 📧 22:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Atsme Thanks so much for weighing in here. I understand your position and consider it consensus to keep the info for now. Could I ask for clarification on whether you think it is original research or not? Do you think it is technically OR, but it is worth keeping per the reasoning you provided, or do you think it is not OR, and it is extra worthy for inclusion per your reasoning? If you would like, see the last few comments above from me and Peter for context on why I'm asking this. IAWW (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  @IAWW thank you for your response, and expressing your concerns. To clarify, I don't believe the material constitutes original research as the information is supported by citations from reputable sources widely accepted in the recreational scuba and/or commercial diving communities. Peter is far more advanced than I as a commercial diver with highly specialized training in mixed gasses, etc. I didn't venture beyond being an advanced open water instructor and NITROX instructor for recreational diving with multiple specialties (emeritus) for SSI and NAUI. The sources cited in this article are authoritative and reflect standard practices for scuba diving. The relative sections outline well-established alternatives to buddy breathing, and I can confirm these are widely recognized practices, not novel interpretations or unpublished ideas. Including this information enhances the article’s comprehensiveness for all divers, from beginners to professionals, without deviating from WP:OR. Atsme 💬 📧 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking the time to look at this. IAWW (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Stable (Criterion 5) Y

Media clock

Could you add an image of the technique itself? Commons has one, and there is one published by NASA which I personally think is better. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, done. Both images equally illustrate the technique. You are welcome to replace with the other if you think it is better. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

On rechecking, I see that the other option uses non-standard long hoses, so not as good for illustrating the standard procedure. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 22:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Tags (Criterion 6a) Y

You made these images yourself? Very impressive IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but not really a big deal. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Captions (Criterion 6b) clock

Is an emergency not implied with the first one (out of air)? IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, but the buddy may not have noticed the first signal, or the diver with the problem may not have made the first signal, so the second signal on its own is assumed to imply an emergency until clarified. It is also possible to want temporary alternative air supply to sort out a not so urgent problem.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Makes sense IAWW (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The first caption has citations but the second one doesn't. I think both should be captioned for verifiability. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Done.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not a GA issue, but in my opinion the first caption now suffers from WP:OVERCITE. Feel free to ignore this if you disagree or don't care in the context of this review IAWW (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

A video would fit really well in this article, but it is not needed for GA. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I know. If or when someone finds one it would be great to add it, but I am not holding my breath... · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Refs would benefit from DOIs and a bit more metadata in some places. I highly recommend adding archives to even non-dead links to prevent link rot in the future. IAWW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I try to run IABot management interface after adding a few refs to add archives, but sometimes it does not find anything to add, and always include doi, pmid, pmc etc. when it is available when formatting a new ref. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Annoyingly IABot often does not add perfectly available archives. Sorry about the invalid DOI comment. Almost every modern paper I have ever seen has a DOI, but in this field they do indeed omit them a lot. IAWW (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is annoying, since I do not know how to find them by another method. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of keeping the permanently dead [3], nor the less reliable [6] and [7]. They just seem to clutter and make verification more complicated. IAWW (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

A permanently dead link does not mean that the document no longer exists, it may be somewhere in the BS-AC archives, and if I remember correctly, [6] contains the information on the chopping action mentioned earlier. I think I know where to find a book reference for that, but it is not available online, which also makes verification more complicated. [7] (Egstrom 1992) is now live linked and is a reliable source. I think you may have meant [5] and [6]. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion and general responses

Standing by. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Pbsouthwood, I started the review above. Please could you resolve these issues before I continue the review? IAWW (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Working on it · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I have responded to everything so far, but you need to check whether the responses are what you were looking for to resolve the issues. Some points may need further clarification or discussion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

Suggestion

When you have more than three citations in a row, you might want to use Template:Sfnm to aid readability. This template supports the inclusion of multiple sources in a single footnote. BorgQueen (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that buddy breathing is the only emergency air sharing technique that can be used with the most basic scuba diving equipment?

• Source: Mike Busuttili; Mike Holbrook; Gordon Ridley; Mike Todd, eds. (1985). Sport diving: The British Sub-Aqua Club Diving Manual (Revised ed.). London: Stanley Paul. p. 72. ISBN 0-09-163831-3.

• ALT1: ... that the buddy breathing technique, which was invented in the military, has been used since the start of recreational diving? Source:
  • Egstrom, Glen H (1992). "Emergency air sharing" (PDF). South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal. 22 (4). Retrieved 2013-12-18.
  • Young, Mark. "Buddy Breathing: Is it Time for Change? Editorial comment". 25th-anniversary-vintage-articles. dtmag.com. Archived from the original on 26 September 2023. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
• ALT2: ... that one study suggests that the buddy breathing technique needs to be practised twenty times to be reasonably successful? Source: Egstrom, Glen H (1992). "Emergency air sharing" (PDF). South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal. 22 (4). Retrieved 2013-12-18.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth El Saffar

Improved to Good Article status by Pbsouthwood (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 88 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC).

• @Pbsouthwood, AirshipJungleman29, and It is a wonderful world: Article recently brought to GA and in overall good shape. QPQ is good; used on three other noms, but it has four boldlinks. Hooks are interesting and cited appropriately and inline. However, Earwig flags a few sentences: a diver could respond to running out of air at depth, in which the incompetence of one diver can, and submersible pressure gauges made reliable air supply monitoring possible and running out of air became less common are all flagged as being exact copies or almost word-for-word. This needs to be resolved, and should be looked into further to see if there are more plagiarism issues. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have rewritten the listed statements and they no longer show up on Earwig. I don't see anything else flagged that appears problematic, but let me know if you find anything else. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Four boldlinks where? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  The boldlinks comment refers to AirshipJungleman29's QPQ. Not an issue, no worries! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good now. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29, Pbsouthwood, and Darth Stabro: As I reviewed for promotion, it looked like there's some WP:CLOP in the "History" section from [1]; see here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Dclemens1971, Which of the very ordinary and commonly used in this context phrases highlighted by Earwigs tool do you consider too close to the source phrasing? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Compare the examples below. The ideas are repeated virtually in identical order, even if some of the words have been changed (and a few text strings are repeated verbatim). Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Source passage 1: This technique has been used since the earliest days of recreational diving, and along with the emergency ascent (originally termed the “blow and go”), it became one of the two ways a diver could respond to running out of air at depth. Back when recreational diving began, all regulators were of a double hose configuration... One advantage of this design was that it made it easy for two divers in a face-to-face position to share the regulator mouthpiece. Article: The procedure has been used since the beginnings of recreational diving, and along with the free ascent, it was one of the standard responses a diver could use if they ran out of air underwater. At that time twin-hose regulators were the norm, and it was reasonably easy for two divers to share the regulator mouthpiece while facing each other.

  Source passage 2: Buddy breathing was a particularly important skill in the early days of diving because running out of air was a common occurrence (so common it wasn’t even considered an “emergency”). Lacking reserve valves or submersible pressure gauges, divers had little idea how much air was actually in their tanks while they were underwater. But by the mid-1960s, with the introduction of submersible pressure gauges, continual and accurate sir supply monitoring was possible. And running out of air became much less common.Article: Buddy breathing was an important skill before reserve valves and submersible pressure gauges were generally available, and running out of air was so common that it was not considered an emergency. By the mid-1960s the commercial availability of submersible pressure gauges made it possible to reliably monitor the remaining air supply, and it became less common to run out of air during a dive.

  Source passage 3: By the late 1960s... single-hose regulators made buddy breathing a more complicated technique. Article: In the late 1960s single-hose regulators started to take over as the standard, and this complicated the buddy breathing procedure.

  They are simple concepts and those are logical orders to describe them, but if you can describe them in different orders, this is Wikipedia, and you are free and welcome to do so as long as the meaning is accurately preserved. Please note that the text strings that are repeated verbatim generally tend to be standard terminology, and in some cases lose or change their meaning if not repeated verbatim. For example, a submersible pressure gauge is a specific type of thing. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  These examples are similar to previous instances of paraphrasing that have resulted in nominations not getting promoted or queued (or getting pulled at a later review point), which is why I didn't feel comfortable promoting any of these hooks when I reviewed it. Perhaps revising these passages to less closely paraphrase the source would help. That said, I'm not pulling the tick, and if another promoter wants to move this forward, they can at their discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  marking as on hold while issues are resolved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood and AirshipJungleman29: Please address the above.--Launchballer 03:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood and AirshipJungleman29: I will close this in 24 hours if I don't see some action on this.--Launchballer 09:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)