Talk:Persistent cloaca

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Persistent cloaca.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

October 4 to 10, 2015 (21st)

Possible copyright violation?

Could someone confirm that the text on this page wasn't lifted verbatim from the two referenced textbooks? —85.214.60.31 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no, since I don't own them, to make sure this isn't the case, let's contribute lots more and break up and rearrange everything so we have a unique article. Tyciol (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Presentation

Without the Spitz and Coran book cited as source for "Treatment" to hand, I'd hazard a guess that it's also the source for "Presentation" because the first sentence of Treatment refers back to the last sentence of Presentation via the phrase "this type of cloaca" (viz., < 3 cm). If so, I'd combine the two sections into one, "Presentation and Treatment."--Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Treatment" section

... is poorly worded, and filled with technical jargon: "performing [a] posterior sagittal approach without opening of the abdomen." What is this supposed to mean? Near the anus rather than the "front" of the perineum, making sure to keep it in a straight line and not slice into either butt-cheek? How does 'approach' fit into it. And how many casual readers seeking a basic explanation of the condition would nod their heads and go "ah, ok."?

I would love to attempt to remedy the grammar but I haven't the technical knowledge to do it adequately. I can only say: if you are a medical student, please don't treat this site as a way to slip something into Gray's Anatomy. Link your comments, and express your ideas in a way that is remotely understandable to the layman. No general-purpose encyclopedia ever engages in such profession-specific jargon, for blatantly obvious reasons. Seneillion (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Species affected

Is this a condition in humans specifically? If so, I think this is worth specifying since cloacas are the correct anatomy in many non-human species.

—- AsterRoc (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous prevalence

The sections "signs and symptoms" and "diagnosis" feature different values for prevalence (1/20k an 1/50k respectively). In my humble opinion that should be resolved. Laserapfel (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]