Lung has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 27, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Human lungs page were merged into Lung. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Borders of the lung page were merged into Lung on October 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
On 19 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lungs. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I am an avid learner and often use the platform "Khan Academy", which is the educational website that this Wikipedia article references in one of its videos. However, the caption of said video states that it was taken "from the Khan Academy", which I feel is quite wrong. Never in my almost two years of studying there have I heard anyone mention Khan Academy as an actual concrete "object". I believe that this should be changed (refer to the subject), but do not want to do it without a general consensus. Does anyone else agree? Liamyangll ( talk) 07:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Lung#Birds links to main article Bird anatomy#Respiratory system.
Bird anatomy#Respiratory system in turn links to main article Respiratory system#Birds.
This seems... unnecessarily recursive, redundant, and indecisive (but I'm too drunk to closely compare the article contents or try to figure out a better system). Intralexical ( talk) 02:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Might as well rename the article, as it is pretty much unclear until you get to get to section six that all of the previous was only about human lungs. Sure, mammals will have many of these things in common, but even within that group there are significant differences, not to mention non-mammalian lungs. There are many categorical statements that are simply not true (volumes, weights, lobe numbers are just the obvious ones), unless it's made clear they apply only to human lungs. Renaming the article and splitting off section six into a new article will be easier than trying to fix that whole mess. Fgf10 ( talk) 15:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
when you inhale does air in lung have higher concentration than air in capillary and when you exhale does air in capillary have higher concentration than air in lung — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c3:4201:d70::af01 ( talk) 20:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Clyde! Franklin! 05:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Lung → Lungs – The article uses "lungs", not "lung". Mucube ( talk) 03:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Lungs 2402:3A80:1182:E158:0:0:87BD:8D75 ( talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone got self-made audios of the human respiration? I am kinds dissappointed on the fact that there are none. DuDeMaNBaLl ( talk) 01:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
anything which we should update about this lung before it is inserted into the article? Claes Lindhardt ( talk) 12:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Lung has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 27, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Human lungs page were merged into Lung. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Borders of the lung page were merged into Lung on October 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
On 19 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lungs. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I am an avid learner and often use the platform "Khan Academy", which is the educational website that this Wikipedia article references in one of its videos. However, the caption of said video states that it was taken "from the Khan Academy", which I feel is quite wrong. Never in my almost two years of studying there have I heard anyone mention Khan Academy as an actual concrete "object". I believe that this should be changed (refer to the subject), but do not want to do it without a general consensus. Does anyone else agree? Liamyangll ( talk) 07:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Lung#Birds links to main article Bird anatomy#Respiratory system.
Bird anatomy#Respiratory system in turn links to main article Respiratory system#Birds.
This seems... unnecessarily recursive, redundant, and indecisive (but I'm too drunk to closely compare the article contents or try to figure out a better system). Intralexical ( talk) 02:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Might as well rename the article, as it is pretty much unclear until you get to get to section six that all of the previous was only about human lungs. Sure, mammals will have many of these things in common, but even within that group there are significant differences, not to mention non-mammalian lungs. There are many categorical statements that are simply not true (volumes, weights, lobe numbers are just the obvious ones), unless it's made clear they apply only to human lungs. Renaming the article and splitting off section six into a new article will be easier than trying to fix that whole mess. Fgf10 ( talk) 15:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
when you inhale does air in lung have higher concentration than air in capillary and when you exhale does air in capillary have higher concentration than air in lung — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c3:4201:d70::af01 ( talk) 20:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Clyde! Franklin! 05:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Lung → Lungs – The article uses "lungs", not "lung". Mucube ( talk) 03:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Lungs 2402:3A80:1182:E158:0:0:87BD:8D75 ( talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone got self-made audios of the human respiration? I am kinds dissappointed on the fact that there are none. DuDeMaNBaLl ( talk) 01:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
anything which we should update about this lung before it is inserted into the article? Claes Lindhardt ( talk) 12:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)