Talk:Death of Linnea Mills

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for your contributions.Atsme 💬 📧 10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC) <–– generated by the NPP process. As a retired scuba instructor, I see this article as important information to share with the public. Atsme 💬 📧 10:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is what I think too. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this article @Pbsouthwood. As someone who has just recently obtained the PADI drysuit certification, and will be doing my PADI rescue course this week, I had been learning about this case, saw it had no article, and was thinking about writing it. So I was surprised and gratified to see that someone had done so already! Agreed with @Atsme, that this is such an egregious case, using the platform of WP to raise awareness of dive-safety issues - so that this tragedy can at least be a lesson for others - is important. So, thank you.

I have some suggestions/comments for you:

1. whether there should be a redirect from Linnea Mills to here. I'm in two-minds about the ethics of this. On the one hand, that will increase the ability of people to learn about this incident, on the other hand, I would not want to have her name and life solely defined by her death. I suspect that in the end we will create a redirect because it's a pragmatic outcome, but I've written the question - looking for policy/consensus advice on the manual of style, here Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#redirects_to_death_of...._articles.
2. in the opening sentence which lists the several causes for the accident (overweight, missing inflator, bad configuration) could/should we also include something about a lack of protocol and lack of standards. There IS a whole section about this lower in the article - but IMHO it should be in the lede sentence. The very fact of no one noticing the inflator hose or weights-placement issues in proof that the buddy-checks were not conducted appropriately (protocol) and the instructor was also not certified for drysuit instruction (standards). I feel like listing the technical reasons for the accident are needed - but the underlying and more important things to be very clear from the top that this was a question of negligence not merely of equipment failure. I feel like starting with the list of equipment problems tends to give the incorrect impression to a reader who has no knowledge of SCUBA because it diminishes the human factors which are the ultimate cause of the tragedy.
3. There is a very-recently published interview on youtube with Linnea's mum, Bob Gentry (buddy), and David Concannon (lawyer) - which could be a very useful primary source for quotes. I've not yet watched it all, but I note that it's a 'part 1'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAQKKE4wHzQ
4. I saw somewhere - but can't find it again! - that subsequent to the court case PADI had updated its standards relating to altitude, drysuit, AOW, training. That'd be an important thing to detail in the 'legacy' section.
5. The fact of their being gopro footage proved very important to the case (both for determining facts, and for it becoming so widely reported). Do we wish to include 'fair use' screenshots from that video in the article. Certainly "notably" information, but, is it ethical. Separately, there's her obituary (and video of funeral) which could be included in the legacy section. https://www.gardencityfh.com/obituaries/linnea-mills

Wittylama 11:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will look into your suggestions. The biggest problem will probably be finding the references again. I also remember seeing something about changes at PADI, but not where I saw it. Feel free to add these things yourself if you like. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead with reference to the procedural problems, while keeping it to basic facts as there is no court finding of negligence at this time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

For future reference regarding sources, whenever I create an article, I also create a bookmark folder for it and in that folder I keep the bookmarks for the sources used in the article. It also makes it easier to find sources down the road in Wayback. Atsme 💬 📧 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Part 2 of the video premiers on the 15th. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGoeeXh8d5k&ab_channel=DIVETALK. cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Part 2 provides quite a bit of relevant information. I have made use of some of it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The use of online videos as sources allows anyone reading the article to go check the sources by watching the videos, so I don't think we really need to use stills extracted from the videos under fair use. I always like to encourage readers to go check our sources anyway, and the videos I have used so far are actually quite good as YouTube sources go. Perhaps not altogether neutral, but they don't have to be. That is our job. I have tried to be neutral by sticking to the observed facts, and identifying speculation and accusations as such. I think I have managed, but if anyone has an issue, let me know. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)