Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive1

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

The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

---

Anabolic steroid

This is an extremely comprehensive article that meets all of the criteria to be a featured article. This article contains numerous sources,references as well as citations for nearly every statement made. This article is an exemplary article in the Drug portal as well. This article is also extremely scientifically accurate citing the most reliable and most cited scientific studies to support it's facts.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

former fac SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose refs aren't correctly formatted, See also contains terms already linked in the article, and lists should be converted to prose. But you were just told all of that a few hours ago on the GA review :-) Also, section headings should be reviewed per WP:MSH, there's no reason for Further reading not to be alphabetical, and there are External links which don't seem to fit with WP:NOT and WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is also a new discussion of POV from today on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How aren't the references correctly formatted?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment there is no single acceptable format for references, and no where in WP:WIAFA or WP:CITE is any one proper format mentioned. That would appear to be a personal preference backed up by zero Wikipedia policies. As long as they are all in the same format and not several different formats I see no problem with any reference format using inline citations that provides the source, access/publish date, and title. Quadzilla99 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for basically the same reasons as last time. There are still paragraphs without citations, there is still no explanation as to why the US government and other governments consider anabolic steroids dangerous enough to make them illegal. (Besides this, the section on the movement for decriminalization seems very US-centric. The article notes that they are available without a prescription in other countries. Wouldn't it make sense to have a section on "Legal status worldwide" instead?) Besides all this, there is a general POV tone to the article, and there are some prose problems, which I've listed below:

• "There are also side effects that are particular to sex..." This needs fixing
• "Other male specific side effects which can occur is testicular atrophy..." It should be "effects...are" but in any case you've listed only one.
• "The demographics of steroid users tend to be mostly males between the ages 15-25 and noncompetitive bodybuilders and non-athletes who use for cosmetic reasons." The use of "use" in this context strikes me as slangy and un-encyclopedic.
• "...at the center of a lot of controversy..." Again, un-encyclopedic tone. "A lot of" just isn't formal enough.
• There are some paragraphs of only one sentence, which ought to be merged with other paragraphs.

On the whole, the article has a long way to go to achieve featured status.MLilburne 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the following response was left on my talk page rather than here. I'd prefer to keep the discussion all in one place. MLilburne 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the response for Anabolic Steroids to become a featured article you state the reasons it should not become one are..

• There are still paragraphs without citations Which specifically don't have citations? If Some articles aren't cited then it's likely they are explained in the references.
• there is still no explanation as to why the US government and other governments consider anabolic steroids dangerous enough to make them illegal. This is explained in the introduction "Today anabolic steroids are controversial because of their widespread use in competitive sports and their associated side effects."
• "There are also side effects that are particular to sex..." This needs fixing What needs fixing about this?

OK, I see what you were getting at here. MLilburne 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are some paragraphs of only one sentence, which ought to be merged with other paragraphs. Which paragraphs specifically?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you explain something in the introduction, then it ought to be just a short summary of information that is available in detail somewhere else in the article (like why governments ban anabolic steroids). And as for the one-sentence paragraphs and paragraphs without citations, I have confidence that you can find them. MLilburne 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

MLilburne, I have no idea why Governments Ban anabolic steroids to be truthful. I could say due to the fact that they believe using them is especially dangerous but I would just be guessing (which is Original research) and U.S. for instance outlaws AAS but alcohol and tobacco are legal and much more dangerous so it does not make sense to me.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Lead needs work.
  • "natural and synthetic steroid hormones" Are there other types besides natural and synthetic? If not, why is natural and synthetic needed here?
  • "Different anabolic androgenic steroids have varying combinations of androgenic and anabolic properties" Different is redundant in combination with "varying". Why is "and" italicized?
  • "The most widespread use of anabolic steroids is their use for chronic wasting conditions" "is in treating" is much better than "is their use for"
  • The word "numerous" is used far too many times.
  • Please remember that commas are your friend, especially when joining independent clauses: "Anabolic steroids have also been associated with numerous side effects when administered in excessive doses and these include elevated cholesterol (increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels), acne, elevated blood pressure, hepatotoxicity, and alterations in left ventricle morphology." And here, the reader is out of breath at the end: "Anabolic steroids are controlled in a few countries including the United States where they are listed as Schedule III in the Controlled Substances Act as well as Canada and Britain who also have laws controlling their use and distribution." BuddingJournalist 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. While I'm not an expert on steroids, at least some steroids are dangerous - but some side effects can indeed be minimized and proper use significantly reduces risks. But even then, some steroids still remain dangerous. And the article should not assume an ideal situation where every user uses the steroids in the least risky way. The fact that some steroids are dangerous is not a popular misconception and a FA should not claim that they (all) are. For instance there are some indications that Human growth hormone makes certain (but not all) types of cancer cells (such as colorectal cancer cells) divide at a faster rate, thus decreasing the likelihood that the body can kill those cells at the early stage and increasing the long term lethality. [1] When one uses anabolic steroids cancer in the search engine of the same medical database, one can find other lethal side effects of AS: [2]. Sijo Ripa 12:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sijo Ripa, The article doesn't make such assumptions. The article explains both circumstances where a user may use dangerous doses of anabolic steroids as well as well as safe doses. The "Possible side effects" section lists numerous side effects that won't appear if a user uses safe doses. However they're still listed and in most cases it is explained that it only occurs in high doses, Such as hepatotoxicity. Some other things, HGH isn't a type of 'anabolic steroid'. Also, your end link doesn't work. If you do a search in pubmed for "anabolic steroids cancer" you'll get numerous unrelated circumstances where sex hormones can cause some types of cancer in some circumstances as well as studies where steroids are used to treat the wasting symptoms in cancer patients but there are not many studies out there showing AAS can cause cancers.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.