Talk:Mouth breathing

The article reads almost like an essay
I'm noticing some of the language used as well as sources cited are borderline argumentative. I have a serious problem with this line in particular.
 * Professor Michael Flanell makes a similar argument in the 2019 article "The Athlete's Secret Ingredient: The Power of Nasal Breathing." He refers to nasal breathing as "the secret to improved health and athletic performance and recovery" since "for the athlete the ability to consume more O2 into their muscles while keeping carbon dioxide levels low is the difference between mediocracy[sic] and greatness in athletes."

Just look at that wording! "The difference between mediocracy and greatness", this quote borders on being ridiculous, it even has a typo. There's no neutrality or counter-arguments against these claims whatsoever. This article has almost entirely been written by one person and I'm unsure what their goal is. 93.107.153.40 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep No personal attacks in mind. Thanks for the feedback, I tweaked that section. There is no agenda, just interest in the subject, just like all of the other articles I have edited for the past 14 years. This article was started in 2005 by someone else, and edited by a number of editors, though I have added material in the past few months. Given the Five pillars, articles are built by the community. So suggestions for improvement are always welcome, or go ahead and add yourself.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do want to say sorry for the tone of that, I feel I was being a bit hostile and assumptive. The above quote really took me aback when I first read it and I was trying to get across my bewilderment. My main issue stemmed from how some of the claims appear to be hyperbolic and go totally unchallenged. There's nothing wrong with stating facts or mentioning it's been found to be inefficient or unhealthy, but I do think the article is kind of odd with how aggressively parts of it go against something as simple as a mode of breathing, which is something you seem to have altered/be altering. 93.107.153.40 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thank you for your kind works. I actually appreciate the feedback, as the goal is always to improve an article. Wikipedia articles evolve in stages from Stub, to Start, To C, B, Good Articles, and Featured Articles. You can read about the various levels here: Content assessment. At the moment this article is in the "Start" mode, as it was when I first came across it a few months ago. Quotes are sometimes used to develop an article, but aren't critical which is why I removed them. It would be nice to move the article up to a GA and for that more editors are needed. So it's useful to have your feedback. If you have more suggestions or want to help improve the article, that would be great. Reliable sources are the basis of Wikipedia articles. You could go through the existing sources to develop or add new sources. This is also a meds article and you want to take care with the kind of references it requires which you can read about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine
 * I would again suggest going through the Five pillars to review how articles are put together. And if you are new to the Wikipedia, Help:Your first article is a useful resource. Most people who edit here do so because they are simply interested, but we are all bound by Neutral point of view. It helps to have multiple editors keep articles within that realm, so thanks for your input. Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"designed"?
"As humans are designed to breathe through the nose rather than the mouth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.148.83 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
Someone needs to take a look at the sources since a cursory glance at just one paragraph includes multiple fabrications. Article needs major overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.252.159 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)