User:Mcwillaa/Reproductive toxicity/Bibliography

You will be compiling your bibliography and creating an outline of the changes you will make in this sandbox.

Bibliography

As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following:

Is the source from a reliable publication?
- Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
- Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
Is the source verifiable?
- In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
- Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
- For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
- Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
- Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
- Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
- Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
- In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
- Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
- Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
- Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
- Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.

If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.

Get Help

Bibliography[edit]

Nations, United (2015-06-19). Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS): Sixth Revised Edition. United Nations. doi:10.18356/591dabf9-en. ISBN 978-92-1-057320-7.
- This is the United Nations guide for classification of chemicals. It was mentioned in the original article as part of defining 'reproductive toxicity', however it did not have a citation so I verified the source and added a citation.
"Endocrine Disruptors". National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
- This is a government website, part of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences subject page for environmental disruptors. As it is a government website it should be a reliable source and provide general information about endocrine disruptors.
Kaur, Mandeep; Sharma, Priya; Kaur, Rajinder; Khetarpal, Preeti (2022-01-02). "Increased incidence of spontaneous abortions on exposure to cadmium and lead: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Gynecological Endocrinology. 38 (1): 16–21. doi:10.1080/09513590.2021.1942450. ISSN 0951-3590.
- This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of lead and cadmium exposure on miscarriages. This will be useful for both of the example sections as they don't discuss female reproductive outcomes. Because it is a systematic review and meta-analysis it should be considered a good source and evidence that this data is well-established.
Zhong, Zixing; Yang, Qingmei; Li, Chu; Chen, Xiaohong; Zhou, Feifei (2022-12-23). "A global perspective of correlation between maternal blood lead levels and risks of preeclampsia: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis". Frontiers in Public Health. 10. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1072052. ISSN 2296-2565.
- This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal blood lead levels and impact on risk of preeclampsia. This will be useful for the lead section and provide evidence on the potential female reproductive outcomes due to lead exposure.
"Lead & Other Heavy Metals - Reproductive Health | NIOSH | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2023-05-01. Retrieved 2024-02-17.
- This is a US government website (CDC) that provides a basic outline of lead and other heavy metals impact on reproductive health as well as the industries most at risk of occupational exposures and will be useful for those sections.
"Lead (Pb) Toxicity: What Are Routes of Exposure to Lead? | Environmental Medicine | ATSDR". www.atsdr.cdc.gov. 2023-05-25. Retrieved 2024-02-17.
- This is another US government website (CDC) that provides a more in-depth description of lead exposure pathways and will be useful for the lead section.
"Take-Home Exposures - Reproductive Health | NIOSH | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2023-05-01. Retrieved 2024-02-17.
- This is a US government website (CDC) that describes what take-home exposure is and describes types of reproductive toxicants that are able to be taken home.

Examples:

Luke, Learie. 2007. Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980 Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
- This is a book published by a university press, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa.
- This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Baker, William J.; Dransfield, John (2016). "Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.
- This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source for a specific fact. Since it only dedicates a few sentences to the topic, it can't be used to establish notability.

References[edit]

Outline of proposed changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

Take parts of this section on infertility and move it to its own section, combining parts of "effects". This section would then need more elaboration on the female reproductive system and the types of infertility that impact that system.

Reproductive System and Infertility[edit]

This section will combine parts of the introduction with the existing "effects" section. This part will outline the potential pathways of reproductive impacts of toxicants. Then will go into sex specific pathways under the subheadings

Male Infertility[edit]

This section will describe various pathways of male infertility as well as types of infertility. Such as, sperm parameter and erectile function.

Female Infertility[edit]

This section will focus on the female reproductive system, female infertility, and will touch on impacts on fetal and child development.

Reproductive Toxicants(now called "examples")[edit]

Heavy Metals[edit]

Add a section here explaining heavy metals and the qualities they have in common.

Lead[edit]

Add impacts on female reproductive health and occupational exposures. Double check existing writing for grammar and citation.

Cadmium[edit]

Add impacts on birth outcomes.

Chromium[edit]

Add more specific detail on the types of reproductive impacts.

Mercury[edit]

Double check existing citations and make sure there aren't any other impacts not listed.

Now that you have compiled a bibliography, it's time to plan out how you'll improve your assigned article.

In this section, write up a concise outline of how the sources you've identified will add relevant information to your chosen article. Be sure to discuss what content gap your additions tackle and how these additions will improve the article's quality.

Consider other changes you'll make to the article, including possible deletions of irrelevant, outdated, or incorrect information, restructuring of the article to improve its readability or any other change you plan on making. This is your chance to really think about how your proposed additions will improve your chosen article and to vet your sources even further.

Note: This is not a draft. This is an outline/plan where you can think about how the sources you've identified will fill in a content gap.

Get Help