Talk:Coracoid process

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tdean005 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aleong24, Avela057.

Is the coracoid process present in monotremes? Conflicting information

This source says it is present, and describes the coracoid process of monotremes as "hypertrophied": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280624457_Origin_of_the_mammalian_shoulder

This source however says that the coracoid process is a unique feature of the therian mammals (i.e. marsupials and placentals): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100248/

So, what is the answer? Does anyone have knowledge on this subject that can shed a light on the right answer?

Just for reference to myself really if someone helps me out, this is the basic structure I would use to convey this info, replacing the kinda awkward wording of the first paragraph currently present in the "Other animals" section:

The coracoid process is a feature present in mammals. In monotremes, reptiles, birds and frogs (but not salamanders), a separate bone called the coracoid is present, but it is not homologous with the coracoid process.(citation goes here)

Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syntactical and grammatical errors

This article contains a number of syntax and grammar errors, as well as several sentences which appear to be gibberish, unless they are using technical language which is undefined. In several cases, the intent of the sentence is completely obscured by the language used, such that correction of the sentence is infeasible. How should this be approached?

As an example, "The distances between the coracoid base and the neurovascular structures is like a 90 degree chair." While the subject-verb disagreement is easily fixed, the idea this sentence is attempting to convey is... what? Fixing the verb to agree in number does not make the idea clear; the sentence needs to be rewritten in some way. The citations for the "lighthouse of the shoulder" idea that would also presumably shed light on the "90-degree chair" concept are paywalled. Furthermore, this article https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.09.031 suggests that the distances depend on the position of the shoulder (which is facially valid, given that the shoulder is dynamic). Should the sentence be struck? How should the remaining examples of this kind of error be brought to editorial attention -- hidden text, perhaps? TheLeakestWink (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]