@jbhullar Thank you for the suggestion. We do ask, and require, that an MCAT-specific source citation be included with any and all content-related suggestions, in order to streamline the process of suggestions and deck maintenance. More information can be found here: AnKing MCAT Deck Submission Guidelines
Please let me know if you have any other questions. 
Clear in the image on Note 1555791204487
Also the image and text of Khan Academy
The extra can be further enriched with content (or a new card added) to capture content missing from the deck (same KA source) about tests to find the RV (and thus FRC and TLC):
Other tests like gas dilution can be used to measure residual volume, and thus FRC and TLC
Just to prevent doubling-back and having deck maintainers chase down citations, we do ask for proper citation, and rationale, in order for suggestions to be looked at properly.
There are examples here of what works best, in order to keep the workflow sustainable for the maintainers as well (of whom there are not many, and who are all also students contributing in their free time): AnKing MCAT Deck Submission Guidelines
Makes life easier to have proper rationales, and citations, included with the suggestion in order to keep everything sustainable and workable. If you have any questions please let me know and I’m happy to clarify however I can.
And just to reiterate: your suggestions are very much appreciated. I don’t mean to detract from that in trying to keep things organized as best we can 
I definitely get it and it’s well taken. I’ll be better about it for future suggestions.
What would be helpful would be some exemplars or similar on the guide.
For sure, there are some ‘don’t do this’ examples at that link that cover some of the basic tendencies and default habits we see a lot of.
Also on that page is a set of ‘please do this’ style suggestions that can help guide you toward the right idea:
For the most part, though the way I think of it is more-or-less stating your case for why you think the proposed suggestion is beneficial (or necessary). Some amount of rationale, or logic, and supporting evidence makes this a lot easier to judge on the maintainer side
The more compelling the rationale, the more likely it is to be approved (and the easier it is to assess). Most of the maintainers are pretty sharp cookies, though they’re also dealing with school and a lot of other things (including the MCAT, or medical school, no less), and so we try to encourage high-quality suggestions to prevent one of two things from happening:
- We get a ton of low-quality suggestions that require a lot of time and legwork to hash out, verify, figure out what the user meant, etc.
- If the above happens, it’s very very likely that we can’t keep up with them all and suggestions stall out and the deck isn’t updated as readily.
The more of a slam dunk you can provide, the easier it is to either glance at it and it gets up-voted, or the easier it is to at least assess the suggestion on its merits. One of those many hands make light work things, again.
Due to the nature of deck maintenance, we typically only have 2-3 maintainers who chip in where they can. With 20,000+ subscribers or so, you can see how the math shakes out pretty quick. 
For a long time we just couldn’t keep up at all, and had a monstrous backlog to contend with. We’ve managed to chip that down, over many months of effort, and very much hope to keep it at a sustainable level, both for our own mental well-being and because it ultimately just makes a better deck and a better resource for users. A lot of these guidelines and requirements were borne from developing best-practices over years and figuring out what works, what doesn’t, and what is sustainable for maintaining something like an awesome deck.
Hopefully that gives a bit more insight, though if you have any specific questions about anything under the Sun happy to be of help however I can.