Talk:Oxygen toxicity/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am appalled by the image used. I guess it comes from the ignorance that bio students have to chemistry. Technically, this condition comes from breathing in dioxigen (i.e. O
₂) at high pressures, so the electron shell of the atom is not too relevant. Anyways, outside of this issue - which I prefer to be clarified throughout the article - the article is close to be a GA. I have placed some ^{[citation needed]} tags though. Also, please do not use references in the lead unless it is reall necessary - refs should be in the body of the article where the information in the lead is expanded. Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more tags. Common terms should be unlinked, while medical terms such as anxiety should be linked. Otherwise looks close. Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: what about relationship with "recreational" uses? I.e. likelihood of toxicity risks in recreational uses. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could tell which links are common and which are medical (I thought "anxiety" was common!). Any other editors willing to cast an eye on this?

I've never heard of recreational oxygen breathing (apart from recreational scuba, of course), so that is worth researching, thanks. It's obvious (I hope) that it could never cause CNS toxicity - but pulmonary, hmmz - you could get maybe a couple of hours breathing pure O2 from a diving-size cylinder. You'd need a lot of cylinders to get close to pulmonary toxicity, but stranger things have happened. I'll do the research. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen bar Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - yes I found that (and couldn't help doing an edit). I think I'd better head over there later and see if I can help. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a brief section on "Society and Culture" which could be expanded later, or (more productively) effort put in to improve Nitrox and Oxygen bar. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA suggestions

The reference 73 is available as full text:[1]
The lead section is normaly only a summary of the text and therefore needs no references.--Stone (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the link - I've incorporated it into ref name=Bert.

The lead is rather more than only a summary: it should serve as an introduction as well and also may require cited sources (see WP:LEADCITE). I do agree though that the lead is over-referenced. I'll try to simplify it a little - probably by moving the sentence with the list of affected tissues to "Classification", which discusses that in more depth. The references could be removed entirely from the lead, at the risk of editors asking for sources, but that should be decided by consensus - what do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in the lead which might be chalanged? The refs 7 to 16 are only used in the lead is the info not also somewhere in the article?--Stone (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed that - all 12 remaining refs in the lead now also appear in the body, so could be removed with little effort. I honestly can't judge what might be challenged - editors are a funny lot! --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several abbreviations that that explained in one section and then used without explanation in another section. I believe few readers read all sections, but mostly dive into one somewhere in the middle. You should try to make sections stand on their own by writing out unusual abreviations (ppO2, ROP, BPD and ARDS). Narayanese (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for pointing that out --RexxS (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In depth review

I am adding clarify and citation needed tags as I go through the article
"as visual changes, ringing in the ears, nausea... dizziness" are linked to other articles. For example why visual changes links to tunnel vision? If it is the latter, then clearl4y specify it in the text - don't be vague.
again, please unlink common terms - i.e. immersion, darkness, tickle, inhalation, cough, ambinet; but NOT ONLY THESE!
"Signs and symptoms" lack the discussion on the ocular toxicity
I would prefer expanding the causes for CNS one a bit
I am still not happy with the image; do ou feel it is representative of the oxygen toxicity?
please choose either SI or imperial units as primary ones; you use feet first, than later on grams - I would prefer SI

Once these are solved, I think this article can even go for a FAC after a good copyedit. Nergaal (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your efforts in helping improve the article. I was particularly impressed by the way you grouped that bunch of references in "Classification"!

Lead - to keep refs out of the lead, I've referenced the Bert & Smith effects under "History" - is a single ref ok? I can find more if you wish. I've rewritten the durations to give a little more precise timing (although the massive variability in onset makes precision difficult). I've re-written the third paragraph to eliminate the awkward grammar in the first sentence and to explain that (as you were hinting) it's only the pulmonary and ocular damage that is of concern with supplemental oxygen.

refs: fine. Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classification - the citation-needed you put in was sourced by the cite at the end of the next sentence (which is the source for both sentences). I've repeated the ref, but I thought that I didn't need to cite every sentence if the final citation covered all of them. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it didn't seem that obvious but ok Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Visual changes" is sometimes referred to in the literature, rather than (the commoner) "tunnel vision" specifically, which leads me to suspect other visual effects may occur. I've re-written to try to avoid synthesis. But I might need guidance on that.

then ok, try saying "...visual changes (especially tunnel vision)..." Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to unlink terms that I think are common, but retained "diver" (and similar) as they may be interesting links, rather than an explanation of the term, for the reader. I still think ambient requires definition: I've taught Scuba diving for almost 20 years now and experience suggests that all of my students who don't have a scientific background need to have "ambient pressure" explained to them - it's an important concept in Scuba as it's the sum of air pressure and water pressure at depth and has to be calculated regularly.

but wasn't it linked to the word "ambient"? link it to something relevant about pressure please Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - there's the rub! It's a long story, but I tried to link to "ambient pressure" in Isobaric counterdiffusion only to find that the article didn't exist. So I linked to Ambient and Pressure. The Pressure article makes one brief mention of ambient pressure but doesn't explain it. Then the link to Ambient was reverted because it's a dab-page and "Ambient pressure" isn't one of the articles on the list. Finally I created the wikipedia article Ambient pressure but that's being moved to wikitionary as a dicdef. I would love to simply link to my definition on wiktionary (as it explains the term satisfactorily, imho) but it's been stuck in transwiki since August. Ok, it's a sore point and been a source of frustration. I guess I'll remove the link for the good of the article until the wiktionary definition arrives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph on signs of ROP - but it's usually skipped over in the literature I'm familiar with (as if it was obvious?).

ok

I'm happier with the image than I was with the previous one - for what that's worth. I could suggest that the principal damage done by O2 toxicity results from that very reaction, so it is symbolic of the subject, but I'd love to find something that illustrated this whole complex subject.

how about generation of superoxide by interaction with iron II, or something like that, where dioxigen is the relevant initiator. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units is a thorny problem. From a consistent, scientific point of view, I agree SI would be best throughout. Unfortunately, when considering the readership in the English-speaking world, I am aware that there exist big differences in the units used and they are often not SI units. To give an example: historically, the UK used feet and psi in the diving context - the USA still does. Nowadays, all UK divers work in metres and bars (and you won't find a Submersible Pressure Gauge marked in kPa anywhere!). But if I just use one unit, I reduce the understandability of the article to one group or the other. So for depth I chose to use metres preferentially (with feet in parentheses for USA readers). However, Donald did recommend a limit of "25 feet", not 7.6 metres. In that case, I reversed the standardisation I had used, since I think "Donald recommended limiting the depth breathing pure oxygen to 7.6 m (25 ft)" looks silly as well as being technically inaccurate. However, if you think standardisation of units is paramount, I'll change it. In the UK, the birth-weight of babies is always reported to layfolk in pounds and I would be surprised if that was different in the USA. Therefore, I've used parenthetical pounds to explain the 1,500 grams, etc. that is found in the literature. I'd be content to change that to 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) if you preferred, but I assumed from the literature that medical professionals use grams when referring to low birth-weight babies. For pressure, I've used "X bar (Y kPa)" throughout except for the mention of spaceflight where the literature uses psia - there I've displayed "X bar (Z psi)" in case the reader wanted to consult the reference and would then relate the partial pressure used in this article to those in the source. However, I wouldn't think the article loses much were I to remove the use of "(Z psi)" in that one case.

I don't care too much about the pressure units, but about the length/weight ones. I just think choosing a primary one is better. Anyways, check the instructions at wp:units. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a real problem in trying to cite "diagnosis by exclusion" for CNS toxicity. It is clearly what happens (absent epilepsy or hypoglycemia), but the problem of exclusion is that it's not a direct diagnosis. It's what you have left after eliminating other possibilities, so I can see that it's going to be harder to source. I'll drop a note into the doctor's mess and see if they can help. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if no reference is abailable, perhaps try adding a text note? anyways, it is not that essential Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice progress with the article! The image now truly represents the article's topic! Although there is still 1 ^{[citation needed]} tag, I believe you will add it soon. One suggestion though: from an aesthetic point of view, there is such a thing as too many refs; in principle, if the statement is not disputable, is enough to have a single truly reliable reference, and discard the less relevant ones since they are redundant. Besides that, remember to do a bit more copyediting and then take a look at Wp:FAC. Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]