Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive0

Anabolic steroid

This is an extremely comprehensive article that meets all of the criteria to be a featured article. This article is well informed and very neutral. This article also has numerous sources as well as many more books and links provided about the subject. This article covers the area of Anabolic Steroids very well and is scientifically accurate.Wikidudeman 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. It doesn't say a thing about the biochemistry behind that class of compounds and has too many bulleted lists. Dr Zak 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's covered on the Steroid article.Wikidudeman 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Man, steroid is pitiful and could really do with expansion.) No, that article merely states that anabolic steroids act on androgen receptors. We need as least one paragraph or two how anabolic steroids turn women into men and men into hulking supermen with acne and shrunk bollocks. Dr Zak 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're grossly overstating how anabolic steroids work. However I do understand your point and I will formulate a paragraph or two on the biochemical mechanisms.Wikidudeman 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was being sarcastic, thinking about kids in the gym abusing steroids , and about Heidi Krieger as well. Dr Zak 20:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm concerned about the limited number of citations, and about the fact that the article generally seems to be making an argument for the safety/legalization of anabolic steroids. It could stand to have significantly more, for example, on the reasons why the US government has chosen not to legalize. The sections on the effects of anabolic steroids should also be converted from lists to prose. MLilburne 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mlilburne. The article contains just the facts. Opposed to scientifically baseless propaganda that you usually see in articles on anabolic steroids. This article contains only what the scientific concensus states. And you say lack of citations? It has over 50 citations. This is more than most articles on wikipedia.Wikidudeman 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are a lot of citations in some sections, there are some sections that lack any. As for "scientifically baseless propaganda," it should certainly be discussed if it's being put out by the US government. MLilburne 17:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Govt is notorious for demonizing various drugs marijuana being one of them. However an encyclopedia article simply needs to state the facts of the drug itself and not get into topics that might seem very POV. Tell me which areas are lacking citations.Wikidudeman 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia needs to deal with what has been said about a subject, whether the author agrees with the sources or not. As for undercited sections, "Administration," "Use and Abuse in Sports" and "Minimizing the Side Effects" seem to be the major offenders. MLilburne 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?Wikidudeman 18:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are getting better, although there are still paragraphs without them, and the one at the end of the "Administration" section is in a different style. My other concerns remain unaddressed. MLilburne 10:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "In a different style"? And tell me what you mean by other concerns? Tell me which 'concerns' you are refering to.Wikidudeman 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "in a different style" I mean that the citation at the end of the "Administration" section is a hyperlink, whereas all of the rest are footnotes. The lone hyperlink should also be a footnote. As for other concerns, they are the same ones that I mentioned above, namely 1) the listiness of the article and 2) the POV in the treatment of the subject. MLilburne 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Lack of citations, please include PMIDs on footnotes, inconsistent style in footnotes (please convert all to one bibliographic style, expand web links and include last access dates), sections headings don't confrom to WP:MOS, very listy (needs to be converted to compelling prose), and in urgent need of a copyedit and prose improvement (sample sentence, "Anabolic steroids were tried by physicians for many purposes from the discovery of synthetic testosterone in the 1930s to the 1950s with varying success.") Sandy (Talk) 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandygeorgia. 1. Please explain to me what you mean by "lack of citations". 2. Explain how to include PMID's. 3. Tell me why you say the footnotes are inconsistent in style. 4.What do you mean by expand weblinks? Please be specific.Wikidudeman 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]