Talk:Recycling

Microplastic

According to a recent study, recycling plastic releases a lot of microplastics — as much as 6-13% of the plastic processed. I think it's noteworthy to be added in the 'criticism' section

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/23/recycling-can-release-huge-quantities-of-microplastics-study-finds 85.158.156.2 (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Solvent/liquid recycling

This is somewhat related to green solvent but that article has a lot of issues. Doesn't a section on solvent recycling belong in this article, or at least in recycling by material? Acetic acid, for example, has 1/4th of its production needs met each year by recycling. Reconrabbit 17:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

See also section

CycloneYoris I don't see why you reverted these edits. Adding a link to the see also section is an improvement and the list already seems to have an established alphabetical order, of which placing "Wishcycling" where it is does not conform to this alphabetical order. Helper201 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201: I originally thought that E-cycling and Energy recycling were the same thing, so I thought it was redundant to include both links at the same time. I've now undone my edits and restored the ones made by the IP. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article

The Lead section includes a definition of recycling, some context and related terms for recycling, and a description of how recycling is most commonly performed. The lead section is well detailed with not too much clutter, but the amount of items mentioned leaves room for variability in the wording. The lead section does not mention every section of the article, but describes some aspect of most.

-In the legislation section under the supply section, mandatory collection laws are not explained thoroughly enough compared to the other 2 topics in the section. "The city is responsible for working to meet this target" Is not detailed enough.

-Under cost-benefit analysis there are multiple uncited claims that has marked [citation needed].

-Last paragraph of economic costs also needs a citation to cite the externalities of recycling.

-Last paragraph of public participation rates makes no sense.

-Citations/ sources for developing data (fluctuating price points, costs, and weight of collected materials) are outdated, and some more than 30 years old. This is important for evaluating the efficiency of different recycling programs with emphasis on continuous improvement.

-"Embracing a circular economy through advanced sorting technologies" and "Recycling in art" are undeveloped sections with not enough citations.

-The article is mostly neutral in tone with differing perspectives given enough respective weight. With the citations being relatively dated, there could be updates on the consensus of different viewpoints.

With regards to equity gaps, I believe the waste pickers are underrepresented in this article. Waste pickers are informal workers that work in small scale, but overall create a considerable impact for recycling (for example) in the Latin American and Caribbean countries. The LAC region has great numbers of waste picking cooperatives, with Brazil alone having around 500. In the LAC region an estimated 0.5-3.8 million people perform informal waste picking labor and are responsible for 10-50% of waste collected and recovered in the LAC. However, waste pickers work in poor conditions. With the information regarding waste collection programs being outdated, I see the value in representing the waste pickers not just in the LAC but worldwide as well. The topic of waste picker collectives really stands out to me, as this method of collection has a higher proportion of overall waste collection in poorer regions of the world.

Overall the recycling article is put together well and has good organization, but it definitely could be polished more. The citations are very numerous throughout the article and nearly every claim is backed up with citations. The data is outdated and could be updated.

Soil.climb (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Soil.climb (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

References