Talk:Exhalation

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the respiratory system. Medicine: Pulmonology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Looks like someone in your group is editing without logging in first? Make sure you are logged in for credit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacardinale (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, the "Exhalation and Gas Exchange" and "Spirometry" sub-headings could be their own headings, instead of placed in the introduction.

(Bleonard4 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I liked your "Yawning" section because it is an daily habit that everyone does, and it was interesting to read. However, when looking over your page, the format of two of your paragraphs seemed formatted wrong. The headings "Introduction" and "Exhalation and Gas" are where the formatting seems to be wrong. There was double spacing and the sentences were not connected after the period. I am not sure if it is suppose to look like this, but it does not look like the rest of your page.

(Arf7 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Mostly there are quite a few grammatical errors. Change "inhaling" to inhalation in 4th line of INTRO, ketones is misspelled in the last line of GAS EXCHANGE,"is can" in 4th paragraph of SPIROMETRY needs to be fixed, there are lots of contratctions that are used incorrectly, as well as comma usage. In many cases you need to just add a period and make a new sentence. If you can make O2 and CO2 into subscripts. Also, in the paragraph where ATP is mentioned, I would say "energy in the form of ATP" instead of "energy in ATP". There is on sentence starting with "Excessive ventilation towards the end of your article that is a run on and sounds very confusing. The yawning section was interesting. You have a good amount of resources. Overall, its a good article-informational and to the point. (chelseavallone (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not a bad written article;however, there are many grammatical errors and incorrect sentence forming. I would suggest going back through and try to make the article read smoother. I also suggest making Spirometry its own title, or incorporating it under a head title explaining various forms of calculating breathing. Possibly include a section on problems that are related to exhalation as well. Marissa.Ray (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are some grammatical errors, overall I thought that the page was well written. I think that the olfaction and exhalation portion is interesting and hope you can expand on it more. Also it was good that you added the abnormalities because of smoking, asthma, and COPD. You could possibly make this its own section and go into more detail.

(Elisabethpj (talk) 9:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

Overall I think this page is very interesting and informative. However, a few of the subtopic pages seem to be arranged incorrectly. For example. Many Wikipedia pages have a sort of intro before the contents tab. So above the contents tab there could in an overview and then below it would be the subgroups where you go into more detail. In addition to that, there are a few grammatical errors throughout the entry so it may help to re-read your article and fix some of those. Other than that it seems very well written. (Boborb44 (talk) 9:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

The second and third lines in the introduction are a bit confusing. A longer explanation of the respiration may help to clear up what is trying to be conveyed. In exhalation and gas exchange the last line is very interesting but it could be expanded on. It leaves the reader wondering what during exhalation is stimulated that allows olfaction to contribute to flavor. In the fourth paragraph of spirometry the first line needs to be fixed. It would also be nice in the spirometry section of some details on how such measurements as TLC and FCR are taken, like the machine that measures them. Organization is a little strange but I don’t know exactly how best to change it. Other than that the page is very well written. (User:Jrsm3 ith23|Jrsmith2(talk) 6:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

Very well written article except for a few grammatical errors here and there. I felt that the article was very well organized and had plenty of information. The yawning section is very interesting, people yawn everyday and it is contagious. "Mikechuchla (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

This is a well written stub. You should go through and check for spelling and and other grammatical answers. There might be some improper or run on sentences or incorrect comma use. You have a good number of resources and go into good depth on your subject. It might be beneficial to add a section on complications with exhalation and maybe a few pictures if possible. Other than that this is pretty informative, good job. (Dgklp18 (talk)

I thought this was a very good article. It was very informative and had some good information. As said before a few grammatical changes should be made but also just make it a smoother read. There are parts where I feel it gets slightly choppy that could easily be fixed. Other than that it is a great article with lots of good information. (Capt326 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This article was one of four submitted by a single editor for peer review. I closed this request (because only one open peer review is allowed per editor) but if someone who is working on this article wants additional feedback, they can submit their own request. WP:MOSMED and WP:MEDRS also have lots of information that should give the interested ideas for edits. Biosthmors (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a subject expert, the sentence "Initiation of voluntary contraction and relaxation of the internal and external internal costals has been shown to take place in the superior portion of the primary motor cortex." appears incorrect to me. Should it, perhaps, read "Initiation of voluntary contraction and relaxation of the internal and external intercostals has been shown to take place in the superior portion of the primary motor cortex."?