Talk:Inner ear decompression sickness

Orphaned references in Inner ear decompression sickness

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Inner ear decompression sickness's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Marx 2010":

• From Diving disorders: Marx, John (2010). Rosen's emergency medicine: concepts and clinical practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier. p. 1870. ISBN 978-0-323-05472-0.
• From Barotrauma: Marx, John (2010). Rosen's emergency medicine: concepts and clinical practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier. p. 1906. ISBN 978-0-323-05472-0.
• From Vertigo: Marx, John (2010). Rosen's emergency medicine: concepts and clinical practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier. p. 1813. ISBN 978-0-323-05472-0.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

B-class review

Probably pretty close. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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. Pass.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. Looks OK to me 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. Looks OK to me.Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK to me.Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Some images would be nice but it in not a topic that is conducive to illustration. 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. Looks OK to me, though a couple of items should be clarifiedY

All boxes now ticked. Good enough for B-class for WPSCUBA.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)