Talk:Lung/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Lights

Should a mention of Lungs used in food be mentioned in this article?--Wynler | Talk 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Got a reference? Melchoir 04:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonrespiratory functions

Another nonrespiratory function is to filter out gas microbubbles occuring in the blood stream during Scuba diving Decompression stop. I think it is worth adding.Michagal 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Circular redirect

There is a reference and link to circulatory lungs in the Avian Lungs section, but it redirects to Lungs --Anidnmeno 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I've fixed it. But you can edit the page, too, you know, it's only locked from IP's and accounts less than four days old. delldot talk 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

History of the study of the lungs?

A good addition to this article would be a section on the history of the study of lungs. LinaMishima (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Invertibrate lungs???

The first sentence of this article implies that only vertibrates have lungs. Snail says that some kinds of snails have lungs. This needs to be clarified and/or corrected. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite correct, Roy. There are a group of air breathing snails called the pulmonata who have lungs. So who's going to change the article? 122.105.84.37

Shouldn't diseases and other problems/defects be mentioned in this article?

(talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just to let you know someone put something like nhhhhhhjksud so I deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.40.99 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pleura and Pleural Cavity

I think this article should mention the pleura (membrane covering the lungs) and the pleural cavity in which the lungs are contained. I would have to do some research on this if I were to do it myself, which I'm willing to do. I thought I would mention it here first in case somebody else more knowledgable than myself could do this more quickly. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


An entire section needs to be added on diseases of the lung

An entire section needs to be added on diseases and traumas of the lung, especially in mammals, primates, and human beings. As of the present, this article hardly mentions lung diseases and other forms of lung damage. There is only minor mention of infection, and nome at all on black lung disease, lung cancer, emphysema, and the effects of poisons such as mustard gas and tobacco tar on the lungs of human beings and other mammals. All of these things are surely serious omissions.98.81.5.18 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Improvement

I think the page could be better improved. Couldn't there be some more color pictures in the articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.123.166 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the article it says "The lung is the essential respiration organ in all air-breathing animals". However, insects, for example, do not have lungs so perhaps it should be reworded to not say "all". You may argue that "breathing" implies only the animals that have lungs, but then the whole sentence becomes redundant, and a semantic tautology. I propose something more succinct and clear along the lines of.. "The lung is an organ used for respiration in many large animals". 188.220.85.6 (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Let me know if you see anything else - many anatomical articles are very human/chordate biased, and I fix what I can when I'm not busy. Mokele (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Right lung.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Right lung.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you remove the picture of pig lungs at the front?

It is as from a butcher's shop. I don't think this should be the first picture you see on this article.

--Emil K2 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Is such a graphic image right at the start of the article necessary to demonstrate what a lung is?

Would a simple diagram not do? --Editor510 drop us a line, mate 22:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

typo

Section on bird lungs reads "higher mean total morphometnc pulmonary" should read "higher mean total morphometric pulmonary" morphometnc is not a thing. --Aidanomatic (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good eyes. Fixed it. Thanks.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Avian lung airflow

The third paragraph on the section on the Avian Lung states that it is a misunderstanding that it takes two breathing cycles for air to flow through the whole system, and goes on to say that air is not stored in the air sacs. The source it cites actually says: "During expiration the major part of inspired air streams from the reservoirs (caudal air sacs, thick open arrows) through the parabronchi/air capillaries into major distal airways, where it mixes with the deoxygenated respiratory gas stored in cranial air sacs during the inspiratory phase." which seems to contradict the article's mention of the air sacs not storing air. While I think this is more of a technicality (air isn't stored there forever, of course), I can find no justification on the sourced site for saying that it does not take two cycles. In fact, since it states that air moves from the reservoir of the caudal air sacs, through the parabronchi, into the cranial sacs upon expiration. This suggests that it takes more than one respiratory cycle for a single "packet" of air to circulate completely. Is there a credible source that describes this differently or is more up-to-date on avian respiration? Faunablues (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Faunablues’ criticism is right, and the version commented on should be changed. On page 62 of:

Bretz, W. L. and K. Schmidt-Nielsen. 1972. The movement of gas in the respiratory system of the duck. The Journal of Experimental Biology 56: 57–65. http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/56/1/57 a table shows the number of cycles required to wash out half the gas inhaled on a particular cycle, from four different airsacs. In all cases, between 2 and 3.5 cycles are required. Unless the volumes retained in the uncompressible lung and airvessels are reasonably comparable to the airsacs, that washout table shows there is substantial gas held in most/all airsacs at the end of the exhalation phase.

Although Bretz & SchmidtNielsen ‘72 is not more recent than the source site originally referenced, it doesn’t matter as Bretz & SchmidtNielsen ‘72 has perfectly adequate authority, the originally sourced site did not endorse the original version, and I believe it’s hard to find one that does. Strangetruther (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Ritchson reference "BIO 554/754 - Ornithology: Avian respiration" (reference #15 when I saw it) talks about moveable valves, for which it references: Bernhard, W., P. L. Haslam, and J. Floros. 2004. From birds to humans: new concepts on airways relative to alveolar surfactant. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology 30: 6-11. Ritchson uses a diagram it gets from Bernhard et al, but the latter simply imply moveable valves and of course give no evidence for them (they are now thought not to exist). Too much of this original Wikipedia page and its references are problematic, and I'm going to give this section, and the Respiratory System section of the bird anatomy page a good spring cleaning soon. Strangetruther (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do, this page could definitely do with some expert attention on the topic. Mokele (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The third paragraph does contain an error but the error is this, "air moves continuously from the posterior to anterior air sacs throughout respiration".

There is no significant flow of air from one set of air sacs to the other. The entire thoracoabdominal cavity expands and contracts during inhalation and exhalation. This means that the caudal and cranial air sacs are always expanding and contracting at the same time. When the caudal sacs are being compressed and are expelling air, the cranial sacs are also expelling air.

This paper is behind a pay wall but the abstract gives a clear and concise picture of the air flow through the avian respiratory system. (pay particular attention to points 2.2 and 3.3 in the abstract) J.H Brackenbury, Airflow and respired gases within the lung-air-sac system of birds, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology, Volume 68, Issue 1, 1981, Pages 1-8, ISSN 0300-9629, DOI: 10.1016/0300-9629(81)90309-1. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0300962981903091)

The author of the third paragraph is correct to state that it is a misunderstanding that it takes two breathing cycles for air to flow through the whole system.

The expression, "flow through the whole system" is likely to cause confusion. It doesn't explicitly state that every air molecule flows through every major feature of the entire system - it is possible to see that air splits and takes different paths - but it conditions the unwary to think that all the air follows one path. When novices try to account for where the air goes they tend to imagine a puff of air entering the bird, they try to picture the route it would take as it flows through the entire system and eventually exits the bird.

Let's list the major points of interest:

  • outside (outside of the bird)
  • trachea (I'm also lumping the extrapulmonary primary bronchi and the mesobronchi into this one unit for brevity)
  • caudal air sacs
  • lungs
  • cranial air sacs

How would a single lump of air move through that system?

The obvious answer is: outside -> trachea -> caudal -> lungs -> cranial -> trachea -> outside. But you can't make that work with one inhale/exhale cycle. Two is the smallest number of cycles where that could work.

The two cycle idea requires somewhere to store significant quantities of air between one cycle and the next. The lungs are essentially fixed in volume, are relatively small compared to the air sacs, and there are no, physical, valves in the system. The lack of hard valves means that the lungs can't be pressurized. Since they are small and can't be pressurized, they can't store enough air to make a significant contribution. The caudal air sacs can hold large amounts of air but they can't transfer that air to the cranial air sacs because both sets of sacs are emptying at the same time.

So how do birds breathe?

The short answer is that they breathe in and out, in one cycle, just like mammals.

The long answer is that air travels: outside -> trachea and then SPLITS! There are 2 destinations.

  1. trachea -> lungs -> cranial air sacs
  2. trachea -> caudal air sacs

When the bird exhales there are two sources of air and they join in the trachea. (Technically they join in the ventrobronchi then pass into the trachea)

  1. cranial -> trachea -> outside
  2. caudal -> lungs -> trachea -> outside

Go here, do a text search in the page for: " During inhalation, air moves into the posterior air sacs " (don't include the quotes) and you will see some diagrams that show the airflow through the system. Note the airflow splits at the end of the mesobronchus during inhalation, and note the air flows joining at the other end during exhalation. You can also see that both sets of air sacs empty and fill at essentially the same times. Scarabaeidae (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the description. Your path description especially, along with the description and diagram in the bird anatomy article have enabled me to understand the airflow. If I may compress it slightly:
Inhalation:
outside -> trachea -> lungs -> cranial air sacs
outside -> trachea -> caudal air sacs
Exhalation:
cranial air sacs -> trachea -> outside
caudal air sacs -> lungs -> trachea -> outside
I'll try to draw this up in Powerpoint or something similar.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The diagrams Scarabaeidae directs us to are rather nice. They do show the front (cranial) and rear (caudal) sacs expanding and contracting together. I think there are three things we need to sort out now.

First, one reason all the air does not go through every part of the whole system is because air leaving the lungs on the expiration phase pretty well bypasses the front sacs and goes straight out. We might want to change anything that seems to contradict this.

Second, no sac empties on exhalation. The Bretz and Schmidt-Nielson papers I cite in Bird Anatomy/Respiratory System wiki article and Talk, show there’s really rather a lot left behind after full exhalation, at least in the duck, and when anaesthetised.

Third is the question of exactly how much air goes straight into the lungs on inhalation, bypassing the rear sacs. The impression I’ve got is that less than half a lungful goes straight into the lungs, and very little if any of that reaches the front sacs by the end of the inhalation which took it in. I also suspect that a lungful is a bit less than half an average inhalation. Complicating this is the way air is inhaled into (both of) the rear sacs from the primary bronchus, while at the same time, air, mostly different air, goes from (both of) the rear sacs into the lung. This seems unlikely but then much of bird breathing has always seemed unlikely. Have a look at those Bretz and S-N flow figures (the other wiki article has the online link to them) and see if they can be explained in any other way. For this bizarre trick to be achieved, birds must be using the neopulmo:

primary bronchus -> rear airsacs (using some parabronchi of the neopulmo as well as direct via prim. bronchus);

simultaneous with:

rear airsacs -> dorsomedial secondary bronchi, via other parabronchi of the neopulmo.

Without the neopulmo it really does seem to be completely impossible to get air out of the rear sacs and into the lungs while they’re being inflated from the primary bronchus. This means that the scheme of half an intake directly into the lungs and half into the rear sacs does indeed apply to penguins and other types without the neopulmo.

That third question really needs experimental evidence showing that the mass of air going straight into the lungs bypassing the rear sacs, is comparable to that going straight into the rear sacs; without a reference showing that, I suggest we must rely on the Bretz and S-N scheme, as regards birds with a neopulmo.

Actually, we’re short of a diagram or two on both this Lungs/Birds page and the Bird Anatomy/Respiratory System page. We need a diagram of the secondary bronchi; I’ve provided one clickable one, mentioned in the Bird Anatomy/Respiratory System page, just after “dorsobronchi and ventrobronchi.”, but I haven’t got it loaded up to Wikipedia yet. However, the finest scale diagram, usually depicted by the classic Duncker diagram found by searching for “(From: Duncker 1971” in http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdrespiration.html (or click the blue: “Go here” in the Scarabaeidae text just above this) is presumably owned by Duncker, and he presumably hasn’t released the copyright. I commissioned an image drawn by an artist after that diagram, and have it in my “Secret Dinobird Story”, and would be willing for it to be used. I think the complication of that diagram is the reason others haven’t drawn up their own. Strangetruther (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Got be explicit here: I'm afraid the 'in and out on one cycle' system proposed above by Scarabaeidae and adjusted by Wikimedes isn't right.

[It couldn't work exactly like that, because for one thing the air inhaled directly into the lungs would need to displace into the front sacs air already in the lungs, which must have come from the rear sacs. This would mean that at least that air would be retained for two complete cycles and would visit both rear and front sacs. This would then be the system in birds lacking a neopulmo.Strangetruther (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)]

It should be:

Inhalation 1: trachea -> primary bronchus -> rear sacs (almost all of it; a little straight to lungs)

Exhalation 1a: rear sacs -> lung (a little continues beyond to front sacs)

Exhalation 1b: stays in rear sacs

Inhalation 2a: The Exh1a air goes: lung -> front sacs

Inhalation 2b: The Exh1b air goes: rear sacs -> lungs

Exhalation 2a: front sacs -> primary bronchus -> trachea and out

Exhalation 2b: lungs -> primary bronchus -> trachea and out


Diagram here: http://sciencepolice2010.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/fig71.gif

Strangetruther (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So in terms of the diagram used in the article to illustrate airflow, this means that the arrow showing air flowing directly from the trachea to the lung and continuing on to the front sacs is (mostly) wrong? (I.e. most of the air that flows through the lung goes from the rear to front sacs.)--Wikimedes (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The article does not establish why it should take 2 cycles for one breath to make its way through the system. When the bird inhales BOTH sets of airsacs fill. When it exhales BOTH sets of airsacs empty. It is true that there is always some air left in the system but that is also true of the mammalian respiratory system - yet we don't say that it takes multiple cycles for air to flow through the mammalian system.

Here are some true statements...

It is a true statement to say that some air is transferred between the posterior and anterior sacs between cycles.

It is also a true statement to say that some air is transferred from the anterior sacs to the posterior sacs between cycles. (See EXPLANATION below)

Both of the statements above are true. But neither of those true statements are helpful in describing how bird respiration works or what it is for. They are true but unhelpful.

Don't get hung up on washout experiments. The same experiments performed on a mammal would show that it takes multiple cycles for a tracer gas to be completely washed out of a mammal's lungs. There is nothing surprising or SIGNIFICANT about this.

Here is an analogy: when a human inhales, about half of the air enters the right lung. When the human exhales most of that air leaves the body but a small amount remains in the trachea at the end of the first exhalation. Some of this air could be drawn back into the left lung during the 'second' inhalation.

So we can make a true statement about mammalian breathing, "Mammalian breathing is a multi-cycle process under which air is exchanged between the two lungs".

The above statement isn't wrong; it isn't inaccurate. It just isn't helpful. It doesn't help us understand how human breathing works and what human breathing is for (what it accomplishes).

It is a mistake to try to account for every molecule of air that entered the system during an inhalation. There will always be some molecules that never left during the first exhalation. It is also a mistake to think that every molecule was gone by the end of a second exhalation. Given that air passes from posterior to anterior between cycles and given that air passes from anterior to posterior between cycles - we can see that some hapless molecules could be stuck in a loop for many cycles. It can happen but it isn't important for understanding how bird respiration works.

(EXPLANATION) - how does air transfer from the anterior to posterior air sacs between cycles? It does it by the same mechanism that air is transferred from posterior to anterior. That mechanism is via unexpired air that was left in the system between cycles. It's the same mechanism that transfers air between the two mammalian lungs.

It is the unexpired air in the lungs and (some of the) secondary bronchi that transfers a little air from posterior to anterior sacs. It is unexpired air in the primary bronchus and trachea that transfer a little air from anterior to posterior between cycles. Both these things happen but they are not important to the task of understanding how birds breathe.

If you believe that it is important to account for all air that entered the system then you can't stop at two cycles. There will still be some molecules of air present from the first inhale after the second exhale. The only inaccurate thing about the two cycle idea is that it stops at two. :-)

I think that our task here is to explain avian respiration and how it works. Any explanation given has to be accurate but it also has to be helpful. The two cycle idea is not helpful and just confuses a fairly simple process. So the two cycle idea fails the helpful test and if the purpose of it is to account for all air inhaled then it fails the accuracy test as well.

Please reconsider your edits. Frustratingnamesearch (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article does not claim that it takes two cycles for one breath to make its way through the system. In fact, the final paragraph of the section on avian lungs explicitly refutes this. Am I missing something?--Wikimedes (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I had several web pages open and confused one page with another. Or I'm just going mad (it's probably the latter). Frustratingnamesearch (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries.--Wikimedes (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unidirectional airflow in birds also appears in other archosaurs

I don't know enough about the subject to confidently edit this in, but this article suggests that unidirectional airflow in the lungs is not an adaptation unique to birds, but is shared with all descendents of an ancestral diapsid and had developed 100 million years before the origin of birds. 82.139.86.180 (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Lungs of Lung?

There is some confusion in the English language about "the lung" and "the lungs". As far as I understand, physicians talk about the lung, whereas laypeople talk about the lungs. Is there a right lung and a left lung, so that a mammal has two lungs? or five lungs? In the article, "lungs" and "lung" are used apparently randomly. Some consistency would be desirable, as well as an explanation of the use of the singular/plural in the lead paragraph.  Andreas  (T) 21:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I came here looking for exactly this information. Nearly three years on and still overlooked.

When talking about the lung most of the time what is referred to is the lung as a functional unit, while the lungs is used when talking about the anatomy. These definitions can sometimes be quite difficult to source as their use is implicit for many doctors or anatomists.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tidal volume, capacity, vandalism

What is the difference between capacity and tidal volume of the lung? The article claims they differ by a factor of 10. AxelBoldt 16:07, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The space the lung uses for inhalation of air is just a fraction (is called the tidal volume) of the space that is availible in the lung (capacity of the lung). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.93.136.84 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 November 2004 (UTC)
True for Mammalian lungs, but not for Avian lungs, as far as the article Bird tells me. Speaking of which, should we describe the lungs of other classes here? Amphibia, Aves, Reptilia? -Wikibob | Talk 13:23, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
They used to be described here, the avian ones at least, but seem to have vanished. I don't have the time right now to sleuth through the article history in detail to find out why, but I've added a link for the avian one now and the others should at least be mentioned too. Bryan 16:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the missing Avian and Amphibian sections.

The loss occurred between

(vandalism was only partially repaired).

Subsequent minor vanadalism had been correctly repaired, and I found no more losses. The Reptilian section was originally empty, and I didn't look further back than July 2004.

After restoration as a check I took this bookmark of the difference between the restored version and Solitude's Revision as of 11:05, 2004 Oct 28.

I will soon move Bryan's Avian section to the restored section as a summary (if my laptop doesn't crash again).

Finally here are the sections I've restored -Wikibob | Talk 00:47, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC) :

Human lungs

See human lung.

Avian lungs

Birds have a significantly different structure to their lungs than mammals do. In addition to the lungs themselves, birds have posterior and anterior air sacs (typically nine) which control air flow through the lungs, but do not play a direct role in gas exchange. They have a flow through respiration system.

When a bird inhales, air flows in through the trachea to the posterior air sacs, while air currently within the lungs flows into the anterior air sacs. When the bird exhales, the fresh air now contained within the posterior air sacs is driven into the lungs, and the stale air now contained within the anterior air sacs is expelled through the trachea and into the atmosphere. Two complete cycles of inhalation and exhalation are, therefore, required for one breath of air to make its way through the avian respiratory system.

Avian lungs do not have alveoli, as mammalian lungs do, but instead contain millions of tiny passages known as parabronchi, connected at either ends by the dorsobronchi and ventrobronchi. Air flows through the honeycombed walls of the parabronchi and into air capillaries, where oxygen and carbon-dioxide are traded with cross-flowing blood capillaries by diffusion, a process of crosscurrent exchange.

The purpose of this complex system of air sacs is to ensure that the airflow through the avian lung is always traveling in the same direction - posterior to anterior. This is in contrast to the mammalian system, in which the direction of airflow in the lung is tidal, reversing between inhalation and exhalation. By utilizing a unidirectional flow of air, avian lungs are able to extract a greater concentration of oxygen from inhaled air. Birds are thus equipped to fly at altitudes at which mammals would succumb to hypoxia.

Reptilian lungs

Amphibian lungs

The lungs of most frogs and other amphibians are simple balloon-like structures, with gas exchange limited to the outer surface area of the lung. This is not a very efficient arrangement, but amphibians have low metabolic demands and also frequently supplement their oxygen supply by diffusion across the moist outer skin of their bodies.

Inaccuracies

Do you think that the comment about their being three branches of the trachea might be inaccurate. I am not sure how the third branch travels through the abdomen, does anyone know?

That raccoon lung picture is a bit much

It's not that its not accurate, it is. It's just that its incredibly disturbing. None of the articles about the Heart or any similar thing have quite a graphic vivisection in a loop going. Is it really necessary for the purposes here? 74.128.43.180 (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

science

The lung is the essential respiration organ in many air-breathing animals, including most tetrapods, a few fish and a few snails. In mammals and the more complex life forms, the two lungs are located near the backbone on either side of the heart. Their principal function is to transport oxygen from the atmosphere into the bloodstream, and to release carbon dioxide from the bloodstream into the atmosphere. A large surface area is needed for this exchange of gases which is accomplished by the mosaic of specialized cells that form millions of tiny, exceptionally thin-walled air sacs called alveoli.

To understand the anatomy of the lungs, the passage of air through the nose and mouth to the alveoli must be studied. The progression of air through either the mouth or the nose, travels through the nasopharynx and oropharynx of the pharynx, larynx, and the trachea (windpipe). The air passes down the trachea, which divides into two main bronchi; these branch to the left and right lungs where they progressively subdivide into a system of bronchi and bronchioles until the alveoli are reached. These many alveoli are where the gas exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen takes place.[2]

Breathing is driven by muscular action; in early tetrapods, air was driven into the lungs by the pharyngeal muscles via buccal pumping, which is still found in amphibians. Reptiles, birds and mammals use their musculoskeletal system to support and foster breathing.

Medical terms related to the lung often begin with pulmo-, such as in the (adjectival form: pulmonary) or from the Latin pulmonarius ("of the lungs"), or with pneumo- (from Greek πνεύμων "lung").--112.208.78.183 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

In the Birds section, change {{main|Bird anatomy#Respiration}} to {{main|Bird anatomy#Respiratory system}} since that is the section's title.

Also, the section "Lung volumes" has the typo "tive]]." 15.211.201.82 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

The internal surface area of the lung can have the following article added as a source reference: "The internal surface area of the adult human lung" by P.S. Haselton, from the Journal of Anatomy (1972). See link for page with summary section from article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1271180/?page=9 65.60.190.101 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Already cited as ref 8. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Human lung

A lot of duplication already exists and size of article will easily allow merge. Also in line with unification of human and other animal articles Iztwoz (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Expansion pre-GA

Some content that should be included and I will be doing (in addition to source)

  • Vascular drainage and lymphatics
  • Central regulation of respiration
  • Innervation

--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Tom

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lung/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Comments by Dunkleosteus77

I don't think this is GA quality; prove me wrong. First off, scroll down to the references section and you'll see error messages. Second, I see three sections that are just bullet-point lists. All of them could easily be worked into a single paragraph.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review, Dunkleosteus77. I and some other editors will try to respond to your review and correct anything that needs to be corrected to get the promotion :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

With regard to references, "garrrrrrrrr". I spend a lot of time making them quite neat but unfortunately in the to and fro of editing they often end up quite convoluted. I will get to fixing these over the next 1-2 days, I hope you can wait. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, these take way longer than two days. Anyways, I'll start reviewing the rest after the ref errors are fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. I'm just waiting on getting hold of a physiology textbook and I should be set. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77  Done, please feel free to commence a more through review. I am ashamed to admit despite 21,000+ edits and 7+ good articles I still have a lot of trouble understanding technically how to make references format properly, so I apologise for that. Sometimes I wish Wikipedia were easier to edit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There are still ref error flags (mainly saying there's more than one first1= parameter)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. At the risk of sounding lazy I just don't have enough time to master reference formatting, although I am happy to address with any other reference concerns you have. Good articles are reviewed against six specific criteria here: WP:GA? There is no criteria that relates to the formatting of references - "Verifibility" is enough (that's #2). That criteria specifically states: "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required". --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done I went through and fixed the ref errors, hopefully using an acceptable referencing format. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Tom (LT), are you using the built-in semi-automated citation template? If so, many of the errors I came across seemed to be caused simply by using the "first name" field rather than the "author" field for one-named authors (like Medline, here). The field is displayed once you click the "Show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom of the window. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out! Actually I wasn't aware of that, but it will save me a lot of agony in the future. Thanks also for your help here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

With regard to bullet-point lists, I assume you are referring to these three sections: "Respiration", "Other", and "Microanatomy". I agree "Respiration" and "Other" may be better presented discursively and will give it a shot. Please feel free to note any other concerns below as you review the article against the good article criteria. I look forward to your continued comments, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

General comments

  • Sorry but I'm a bit busy right now, and I won't be able to continue this review until Saturday (PST) or later. Sorry
That's OK! I look forward to your general comments. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove sentences that say "read more about that in the section below/this article/etc."
Had a quick skim. To where do you point specifically? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Take out template {{clear}} at the bottom of the Respiratory System section
 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Use template {{convert}} when discussing units of measurement. For example, instead of saying "50 to 75 square meters", use template {{convert}} and replace it with {{convert|50|to|75|sqm|sqft}} where sqm is square meters (the unit the measurements are in) and sqft are sqaure feet (the units it's converting). It should then read 50 to 75 square metres (540 to 810 sq ft). If you want to use the abbreviation, add the parameter abbr=on
 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not italicize for effect, as done with "deoxygenated blood" in the Blood supply section
 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Blood supply section, wikilink "venous blood"
 Not done This means blood that is in veins, ie. carrying some extra metabolites and less oxygen.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "the left and right lungs" (as done in the Blood supply section), just say "the lungs"
Can't find where else we've said this other than in "Development" where I think it is useful to point out that the lung buds are left and right (as opposed to dorsal and ventral, see Pancrease#Development). --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Just hit CTRL+F to find any line of text easily
 Done have found two references as described above, both of which I think are warranted. No further changes made. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Only use bullet-points for long lists; remove the bullet-points in the Microanatomy section
 Done I agree this enhances readability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't tell if this is written in American English or British English because I see "specialise" and "reorganized"
 Not done requesting this is beyond the purview of a good article review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
To comply with the spelling requirement, you must pick a dialect to write in (generally it's between American and British English)
 Not done as stated this is not required by the good article criteria, which state (WP:GA?): " Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.". --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, as per GA Criteria "the spelling and grammar are correct". You either misspelled "recognize" or "specialise", so pick a dialect (it's not too hard!)
  • Instead of wikilinking the name of the section, use template {{main}} instead. For example, instead of wikilinking "breathing" in the Breathing section, add {{main}} to the top of the Breathing section.
 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Protection section, wikilink "antoproteases"
 Done, good catch. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When putting a ref after a punctuation point midway in a paragraph, you have to put a space between the ref and the following line of text. For example, change "<ref>cats.org</ref>The cat" to "<ref>cats.org</ref> The cat".
 Done thanks, you are right and this does make it much more readable :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Unless it's for a list, treat semicolons as periods (so don't use "and" right after it).
 Not done I think our use of semicolons falls within standard English usage, including use in the case of complex lists, and use of the word "and" in the final clause, so I haven't made any changes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The semicolons with the word "and" after it is connecting the independent clause to the dependent clause instead of being used in a lengthy list. Replace these with commas (also do this for both semicolons in the first paragraph in the Gross anatomy section)
 will not be doing I do not agree with you, and at any rate this discussion is beyond the purview of a GA review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This is definitely within the purview of GA review (must comply to rules of grammar)
  • In the Birds section, it says "On inspiration, air...". I don't think this is the correct way to use the word "inspiration"
 Done this is the correct usage. However I realise we haven't actually stated that in the article, so I have added this sentence to the 'respiration' section: "Respiration is divided into 'inspiration, in which air is taken into the lungs, and expiration, in which it is expelled from them." --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Lungfish section, change "...curving round and above the..." to "...curving around and above the..."
 Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

For future purposes, when replying, start the sentence with a colon (:) instead of two bullet points (**)

References

  • I don't think ref no. 20 (About.com) is a reliable source
 Done replaced and expanded subsection. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Be consistent using either ISBN-10 or ISBN-13, use this site for help converting
Happen to know why this is necessary from a technical standpoint? Shouldn't any reference correctly identify the target using either standard? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
As per WP:ISBN, "use ISBN-13 if possible"
  • Make sure the titles aren't capitalized (like in ref no. 33 and ref no. 33, Sieunarine, K, et al., and ref no. 1, Mitchell)
 Done This one in particular seems like one that's easier to fix than to write out the fix for ;) AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For ref no. 1, Mitchell, what is the first author's first name? Actually, in most of the refs, last name then first name is used, but in ref no. 1, first name then last name is used. Be consistent
 Done AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Make sure every ref uses template {{cite}}; ref no. 43 (Brainerd, E. L.) does not
As stated above I am not going to address reference formatting in this review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is if the ref uses a doi without using template {{cite}}, it doesn't link to the proper page. Also, ref 43 displays both the url and the title, but the url should not be displayed as it does in ref no. 43
  • There are some stand-alone sentences that are unreferenced (I see one in the Microanatomy section)

I look forward to the rest of your review with eager typing fingers and a small pile of books at my desk :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Completion of review

Hi @Dunkleosteus77, would it be possible for you to identify the issues which are preventing this article from becoming a good article? I feel as stated above there has been some confusion between what would make this a better article, and what would make this a "good article" - as I've stated above there are only six criteria. A helpful essay to understand these is here: what the good article criteria are not. Unfortunately I work 80+ hours at the moment every second week, which makes it hard for me to reply unless in bursts of editing. If you'd be able to identify what issues (if any) are preventing this article becoming a GA, it will help me to respond and prioritise. If you are having trouble identifying these, it may be worth us asking for a second opinion so that a second set of eyes can help out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ref error mark-up

Hi Tom (LT) found the ref title etc for Pawlina and filled in (ISBN search no good) but getting error message about different content - hope you can fix! Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mate I'll get to it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lungs/GA1

Recent additions

Hi Tom (LT) wondered if you have any thoughts about the recent additions - imo they are too lengthy - have said as much on editor's page but would welcome your input. I had been thinking to carry on developing the page for FA consideration. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping Iztwoz.
  • @Cruithne9 I think there are a couple of important things to consider here.
    1. Firstly... it's always great to have new editors around. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    2. Secondly is verifiability. Statements added to this article (already a good article) should be able to be verified by sources, particularly given the article will otherwise regress just to random added statements of uncertain accuracy; otherwise they should be removed.
    3. Thirdly is WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. The primary topic of this article is "Lung", and not "breathing"
    4. Lastly is WP:TECHNICAL. Articles should be written in a way that lay readers, who we presume have not had a university education, can understand. We should avoid making unnecessarily scientific statements or using formulas if there is an easier but equally-accurate way to do it.
  • So, Cruithne9, I and Iztwoz and Wikipedia in general thank you for your edits but would be very grateful if you could provide sources relating to what you've added, otherwise I will remove it in a week or two, as we have a well-reading and well-sourced article already. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT) and Iztwoz. I am acutely aware of the conditions you set out for additions to an existing article (or any article in Wikipedia for that matter), especially one that has already been evaluated a GA recently. My concern is that an article on an anatomical structure, such as the lung, (without specifying that that it is primarily about its "Anatomy" or "Structure"), it should include what it does, and how it does it, as well as how the body benefits from its existence (i.e why it is there). My concern is that "Protection" received as much attention in the original version as the lungs' primary function as a pair of organs of where gas exchange occurs.
My references are no less sparse than in any other section the GA article. But I will, in the next little while, attempt to make the sections I have added less "first year university level" comprehensible than is presently the case, while maintaining their encyclopedic value, rather than simply adding (edited) quotes from high school textbooks. If I do not succeed then, by all means, revert to the original version. Cruithne9 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cruithne9}, I look forward to your edits :). As you write, these are not "conditions" that we have set, but just an overview of guidelines and policies relating to how articles are written on Wikipedia and how they apply here. You stated above "My references are no less sparse than in any other section" but I would point out your new additions, particularly to "gas exchange" and "breathing" are almost completely unreferenced. The rest of the article, as you can see, has references which can be verified. References need to be provided to substantiate what you have said - this is WP:V. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT) and Iztwoz. I have revised the sections on breathing, gas exchange and the control of breathing in line with your suggestions and requests. These sections are now much shorter than before, easier to read and understand without a university education, and fully referenced. I hope that you will be pleased, or at least happy with the result. If not then please feel free to make further suggestions or make appropriate edits. Cruithne9 (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT) and Iztwoz. I notice that Iztwoz has edited the “breathing” subsection in order to simplify and shorten it. Unfortunately several of the statements are unphysiological, and do not express the consensus opinion of any of the reputable physiology and anatomy textbooks. For instance, the first two sentences of the opening paragraph read: The lungs can only expand when there is an increase in the volume of the thoracic cavity. This happens on an out-breath or exhalation when the diaphragm contracts. In fact, an increase in the volume of the thoracic cavity results in inhalation (or “breathing in”), and not, as stated, in an exhalation. Furthermore, exhalation is never caused by contraction of the diaphragm.

Further down in the same paragraph, it is stated that extra volume is also provided by the muscles of the abdominal wall giving the impression that the abdominal muscles contract during inhalation. They, in fact, relax during inhalation allowing the abdomen to bulge outwards, when its contents are compressed by the descending diaphragm. Thus the whole of the opening paragraph is confused, and totally at variance with accepted, standard physiological teaching and understanding. The first sentence of the next paragraph, Signals in the form of action potentials are sent via the phrenic nerve that inform the respiratory centres in the brainstem, of respiratory needs is also incorrect. The phrenic nerve is a purely motor nerve that innervates the diaphragm (causing it to contract if action potentials travel down it from the respiratory center to the diaphragm, and to relax when the action potentials cease). It does not have any sensory fibres that convey information to the respiratory centers of the brainstem, and cannot therefore provide information about the “respiratory needs” of the body. That information is obtained from the peripheral and central blood gas chemoreceptors described under the subheading of “Control of breathing”. The description of the respiratory centers in the brainstem is superfluous here, as they, and their role in the rate and depth of breathing, are fully described under the heading “Control of breathing”. I also think that the terms “in-breath” and “out-breath” are probably unnecessary, but if they were to be retained then “breathing in” is better than “in-breath”, and “breathing out” is better than “out-breath”.

The “Breathing” subsection is need of a complete revision. I will work on such a revision, based on what was previously there, but possibly in a somewhat shortened form, where possible, while making sure that misunderstandings are going to be unlikely. Cruithne9 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've sort of given up on the page - it has become far too detailed and technical . With all the hatnotes in place i cannot see the need for duplicatiing all that is now duplicated on several related pages. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if someone wrote a section about the clinical examination of the lungs (percussion, auscultation). I'm currently too busy to do it myself, and would prefer if someone who knows the topic and the article (and is a native English speaker) adds this. --Eleassar my talk 20:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Great suggestion, very relevant to the article... I'll add it to my to-do list, Eleassar. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Lung, not breathing

The primary topic of this article is lung, NOT breathing

Details about the mechanism for breathing should be placed on the breathing article. It is sufficient here to say that muscles, particularly the diaphragm, are involved in breathing. Here, we use WP:HATNOTEs to link to the main article. The reason we do this is otherwise every article ends up being a huge mess, where every topic related to said article is covered.

If we did this here, we would have a sprawling article covering in extensive detail the chest, anatomy, all the details related to lung cancer, pneumonia, etc. This is clearly impractical as it means readers have difficulty focusing on the actual topic of the article. We have other articles which cover these topics.

@Cruithne9 I will continue to remove any extraneous content that you place on this article relating to breathing if it is not directly related to the lung. "Bucket handle" relates to rib movements during breathing. Breathing involves the lung. This is not directly related. Iztwoz has already mentioned these concerns to you. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Cruithne9 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Footnote heading

why is there an empty heading "Foot note" before "See also" section? can´t see this in other organ pages. OK to delete? Figgep (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Lung → Lungs – When we talk about lungs, we usually talk about them as a pair so I believe this article should be moved. 2601:183:101:58D0:B807:3EC7:4CDA:F10D (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:SINGULAR. Article titles should use the singular form. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rreagan007 and Hand, Arm, Knee, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per common sense and provisions at WP:PLURAL, specifically, Articles on items such as scissors or handcuffs are not located at awkward, unnatural titles like scissor or handcuff. or one is much more likely to mention the Bernoulli numbers or Arabic numerals than a particular Bernoulli number or Arabic numeral. While I grant that a "lung" is a thing (unlike a "scissor"), it is so rarely used in singular (unlike "arm", "hand" or "knee") that the singular title comes across as awkward. Besides, the two lungs are not completely identical (The right lung has both more lobes and segments than the left.) and the article treats them as a group/system of entities, not as indivisible units. No such user (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Rarely used as singular? I can think of plenty of examples off the top of my head: "Lung transplant", "Cough up a lung", "Lung disease", "Lung cancer", "Smoker's lung", "Collapsed lung". Rreagan007 (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    1. "Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English" (from WP:SINGULAR) we do not "always" refer to the left and right lung together
    2. The lungs are not uncommonly used in singular - eg the left lung sits on top of the heart, the right lung is larger than the left, person X was shot in the right lung, cancer of the left lung, etc etc.
    3. So appropriate place to raise this type of move query is the manual of style - our local consensus can't override the broader consensus there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Tom (LT): I beg to differ: WP:PLURAL expressly permits exceptions based on local consensus: In rare circumstances, we ignore the rules here in order to make the encyclopedia better. while complementary WP:SINGULAR disclaims that Article titles are generally singular. This article is not about a single lung but about a dual organ commonly referred to as lungs. While you may reasonably disagree that the exception shouldn't apply, you should not base your reasoning solely on adherence to rules. No such user (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it’s not uncommon to talk about a single lung. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Something Patrick Stump Steals?

Pages linking to Lung are told lungs are "something Patrick Stump steals" im guessing this is a Fall Out Boy (american rock band) reference, :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.69.200 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Borders of the lung" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Borders of the lung. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lung health, NYT, add?

X1\ (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi X1, this article is quite long and fairly comprehensive. Where do you see this reference being used and, in that case is the NYT article a reliable source? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • How about at "External links", Tom (LT)? X1\ (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I really don't think so. I just don't see how that article adds anything material to this article, and I don't see it being either influential or notable enough in terms of lungs to mention. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Lung/Archive_1"