Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anabolic steroid/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:45, 18 January 2010 [1].

---

Anabolic steroid

Review commentary

• Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/Archive
• Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive0
• Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive3

• Featured article review/Anabolic steroid/archive1

Notified: All six Wikiprojects involved [2][3][4][5][6][7] Wikidudeman [8] Xasodfuih[9]

I am nominating this featured article for review because if is not that well organized, some of it is confusing, and it is still limited in scope.

1. Does not discuss trend in usage.
2. Starts by says they are "a class of steroid hormones" yet on the steroid hormones page are not listed as one of the five classes

   done

3. "related to the hormone testosterone" does that include testosterone? And a couple others should be listed in the lead

   done

4. "stimulate bone growth" is mentioned in the lead however this is no longer done due to growth hormone and the article should reflect this
5. medical uses section is a list. Should be presented as prose. Some uses are unreferenced. How effective for all these indications should be mentioned. A number of conditions are historical, some are in research stages, and others listed were found to be not effective.
6. Mechanism of action and Pharmacodynamics are listed under side effects?

   done

7. Improvement tags are present
8. Nothing on there veterinary use?
9. Indications should come after history

   done

10. I do not like this wording as fairly low is vague. "It is difficult to determine what percent of the population in general have actually used anabolic steroids, but the number seems to be fairly low" This ref says it is widespread [10]
11. Too much primary research is cited rather than reviews. These review for example seems to contradict the above [11][12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please notify significant contributors, and link the Project notifications at the top of this page so they can be verified. (See WP:FAR instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Rawdealsteroids4.jpg: the "source link" links to the source for File:Rd17.jpg not for itself. All other images OK, but alt text required. DrKiernan (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please see WP:ALT for advice about the alt text that the images all need. Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested featured article criterion concerns are comprehensiveness, prose structure, referencing. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delist, unsourced parts and concerns about comprehensiveness. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delist as due to the unaddressed issues above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delist. Per DocJames' comments (the largest issue, IMO, especially the primary research issue), plus: Major expansion banner, plus multiple (valid) citation needed tags in place, some since 2008. Improperly formatted citations, including not-widely-known abbreviations, missing publishers, access dates, and titles in web refs. Why are the works in the Further reading section not used? If they are out of date (i.e. possibly the 1997 work), should they be removed (this is a question for the medref people, I'm not completely sure)? Images still lack alt text, although this is a secondary issue. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.