User:Shermanmccarthy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Perchlorate

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I have chosen this article to evaluate because there is no information about perchlorate on the endocrine disruptors wikipedia page. I believe it is relevant because of its use in both food package and in rocket materials. Frozen foods are commonly by most families therefore it is important to understand the effects of perchlorate. Additionally, the use of rocket fuels has increased with the industrial privatization of aerospace travel  becoming a reality. With an increase in rocket usage, we can expect an increase in perchlorate in the environment. Upon reading the article, there is a

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section describes what perchlorate is and why it is important. Although, it does state that Perchlorate is "somewhat" harmful to human health, and to my current understanding that is not the correct statement. There is evidence in the article that strongly suggest that Perchlorate is harmful to human health. Although, I can understand why the writer used the term "somewhat" since perchlorate does not have any long-term effects on adults unless the adult consumes it in a large dose, but perchlorate does cause long-term effects on children, infants, and newborns.

The articles content is relevant to the topic, although, there is a strong focus on regulation history within the Health effects section. I believe an expansion on the adverse/ non-adverse health effects mentioned in the article would be beneficial. Additionally, the focus on regulation and recommend contamination levels that is greatly detailed within the Health section could be moved to either the "water" or "regulation" sections.

Based on other research, there is a lack of updated information regarding perchlorate heath effects and wide spread usage. Additionally, the Trump administration preformed a study in order to determine safe levels of perchlorate in water for human health, and the Biden administration declined to address perchlorate toxicity levels for children, newborns, and infants. This information would be important for a reader to have.

The article does not deal include an equity gap, although, at least at face value, there doesn't seem to be any research that would suggest perchlorate could be related to an unrepresentative population.

The article is mostly neutral and does present information without overly forcing a particular position. There does appear to be a small bias towards the downsides of perchlorate and there is not sufficient information about its industrial use especially when it comes to rocket fuel and its contribution to lowering fuel cost. If there was quantitative data about perchlorate use, readers could form their own conclusions regarding the environmental accumulation and its potential effects.

Regarding the sources and references, there were multiple claims made that weren't backed with any citations, additionally, there were multiple claims with citations from the 1900s.

The images that are included in the article are useful for a reader.

The talk page has no discussions at all.

My overall impression is that the article is useful for a reader, and you could get a general understanding of perchlorate, but with the addition of new sources and new information, a reader could have a more reliable understanding of perchlorate.