Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Anabolic steroid

previous FAC

This article has been nominated twice in the past for featured article and has failed both times. Contributors have been working vastly to improve this article since then taking into account criticism of it and improving it on all accounts. 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 the facts. This article is also very neutral, explaining both the potential side effects of the drugs as well as the misconceptions and inaccuracies concerning the drugs. This article has been peer reviewed twice and is currently a "Good article". I believe it should now be a featured article. Please leave detailed criticism of the article if you do indeed object to it being a F.A. If you object, please leave your objections so that I can address them ASAP and once addressed, or changes made to the article to reflect objections, please cross out your objections and change your vote to "Support".Wikidudeman (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Object: Major structural problems. For instance, Dihydrotestosterone is suddenly thrown in at the "Biological mechanisms" section, it won't be mentioned again until "Potential side effects", and in neither case is it explained what it is. (As well, it should, stricly speaking, be called 5α-DHT). It has odd sentences like "Anabolic steroids are androgenic and therefore produce androgenic effects in the body." Many things are very poorly explained, the worst probably being "It has also been hypothesized[9] that androgens regulate body composition by promoting the commitment of mesenchymal pluripotent cells into myogenic lineages and inhibiting their differentiation into adipogenic lineages. However, androgens may also play an anticatabolic role in inhibiting skeletal muscle atrophy through antiglucocorticoid action independent of the androgen receptor.". Until this can be organised into a logical structure and have all the unexplained biological and chemical terms glossed, I can't see this as an FA. Vanished user talk 06:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I fixed everything you mentioned[[1]] except for the last part. I think it's pretty self explanatory. You can cross out what I fixed and change your vote if you want, or mention something else you see wrong with the article.Wikidudeman (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont think it's really enough, I fear. This looks a lot better thanwhen I last saw it, but... well, I'll just list a bit
Lead: "(increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels)" (explain why this matters), "hepatotoxicity" (unexplained medical term). "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." (Very Anglocentric, and specifically Americocentric, due to differing detail).
History "He is thought to have introduced the technique of acupuncture." (why mention this?) Much of the connection to anabolic steroids is tangental at best - is "Shen Nung Pen Ts'ao Ching’s “Divine Husbandman's Classic of Materia Medica” actually anything to do wth anabolic steroids, or is it simply an early medical text? Is that really the best translation of its name? "Comments on professional athletes in ancient Greece suggest that a wide variety of natural anabolic substances were used to promote androgenic and anabolic growth. These ranged from testicular extracts to plant materials including fungi poisons." Is this really connectable to anabolic steroids? Performance enhancers are not the same as steroids. "The word “doping” is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges.[2]" Is this relevant? "This study had many flaws including inconsistent controls and insignificant doses." Cite this. The last paragraph, and most of the one before it, is pure Americocentricism.
Biochemical mechanism Should be mechanisms. "When taken during pregnancy, they can affect fetal development" - How? This sentence is also awkwardly inserted between two unrelated comments. The whole first paragraph is a mess, having no flow and no consistant logic. "stimulate myogenesis, the formation of muscular tissue" - generally, it's better to give the gloss first. "hypertrophy" - unexplained term.
Another huge block of medical textbook text: "It is widely understood that supraphysiological doses of testosterone in non-hypogonadal men promote nitrogen density and increase fat free mass (muscle mass) while at the same time decreasing fat, particularly abdominal fat. The increase in muscle mass is mostly skeletal muscle increase which is likely caused by an increased biosynthesis of muscle proteins or possibly a decline in the breakdown in muscle proteins.[9] It has also been hypothesized[10] that androgens regulate body composition by promoting the commitment of mesenchymal pluripotent cells into myogenic lineages and inhibiting their differentiation into adipogenic lineages. However, androgens may also play an anticatabolic role in inhibiting skeletal muscle atrophy through antiglucocorticoid action independent of the androgen receptor.[11]"
Paragraph begining "The mechanisms of action differ depending on the specific anabolic steroid." does not explain why this is important.
Administration "(such as by alkylation at the 17 alpha position)" This is supposed to be writing for the layman, not biochemists. Illustrate with a diagram a possible modification. Hepatotoxicity again. "Injectable steroids are typically administered intramuscularly, to avoid sharp blood level changes" explain what this means. "Finally, transdermal administration via creams, gels or transdermal patches is very convenient and is becoming more popular." - the italicised part reads like an advertisement.
(Illustration) "Depo-Testosterone 200 mg per ml injection Testosterone cypionate." - Quoting the prescription really isn't sufficient. Describe it.
Anabolic and virilizing effects Ridiculous number of unexplained terms, including "androgenic", "virilising", "catabolism", "clitoral hypertrophy", "endogenous sex hormones", and "spermatogenesis". As well, "Anabolic androgenic steroids produce anabolic and virilizing (also known as androgenic) effects." - Gee, who would guess that anabolic androgenic steroids were anabolic and androgenic?
Possible unwanted side effects - Side effects by definition are unwanted. More importantly, the entire paragraph is written in clinical jargon. Just one example, but this is typical of the entire section. "However, the negative relation of left ventricle morphology to decreased cardiac function has been disputed.[24] Also, hepatotoxicity can be caused by high doses of oral anabolic steroid compounds that are 17-alpha-alkylated to increase their bioavailability and stability in the digestive system.[25]" ALL of this must be simplified to layman's level. A lot of repetition from other sections.
Minimization of side effects Same problems as above.
Medical uses "Bone marrow stimulation: For decades, anabolic steroids were the mainstay of therapy for hypoplastic anemias not due to nutrient deficiency, especially aplastic anemia. Anabolic steroids are slowly being replaced by synthetic protein hormones (such as epoetin alfa) that selectively stimulate growth of blood cell precursors."
Popular misconceptions "It is likely that this myth came from the real side effect of anabolic steroids known as testicular atrophy, in which the use of anabolic steroids causes reduced secretion of the gonadotropin luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone from the anterior pituitary gland, thus reducing testicle size. This side effect is temporary and the testicles return to normal soon after exogenous androgen administration is halted.[59]" "in other words, whereas normal hearts have three cusps" - when clarifying, it's important to explain all of it. That includes the word "cusp".
Movement for decriminalization Americocentric.
List of anabolic compounds commonly used as ergogenic aids Define "ergogenic aid".
My objections stand. Vanished user talk 00:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam, Most of your objections really don't make sense.
1. You claim that I need to explain why "increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels" matters? Why do I need to explain this? How is this relevant to the actual article? I link to the proper links that describe what bad cholesterol means. It doesn't need explaining in the article. I urge you to remove this from your objection.
2.The mention of Shennong invention of acupuncture is a device used to familiarize the reader with the person. That's it. It's relevant.
3. Most of your other objections fall into the same category.
4.I will work on simplifying the medical jargon into laymen.
5.I will change the Illustration text.
6.Side effects by definition are not unwanted. Many side effects of drugs are taken advantage of. The side effect of Smoking cigarette's is it blocks hunger. This is a side effect that isn't always unwanted by people.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The LDL/HDL thing: You can't expect the reader to read two articles just to be able to read yours, and the more you do that, the more articles the person has to read. Explain things like that briefly. As for the invention of acupuncture: You haven't really established that the medical text in question is actually relevant to anabolic steroids, so adding off-topic trivia about its creator is going even further off-topic. You dismiss most of my other complaints out of hand, so I'm not sure how much more I can help. Vanished user talk 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam. That's how Wikipedia works. Look at any featured article. They all work that way, they all mention non-laymen terms and link to their relevant articles that explain said terms. Look at the article on DNA which is also a featured article. It works the same way. It has numerous non-laymen terms and that it doesn't explain, rather simply links to their own articles. Examples being "prokaryotes", "spliceosomes", "heterocyclic compounds", and "exonucleases" just to name a few. None of these terms are laymen terms. None of them are explained. They're all linked to their own pages.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
But this is done to the point of unreadability. Vanished user talk 14:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, it violates the MOS page Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions Vanished user talk 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It actually doesn't violate that. If you read it, it says that articles where the terms can't be linked should at least use alternative terms or define them. In this article all of them can be linked to other articles which do define the terms.Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous reading of "These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists." "Some technical subjects are important to public policy questions (like genetic engineering) or a common subject of curiosity (like quantum mechanics). A special effort should be made to explain these topics" Indeed, NOWHERE in that guideline is wikilinking mentioned as a substitute. Vanished user talk 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the second quote was from Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, another, but related guideline. Vanished user talk 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? "It may not be necessary then to define the term in the article if a link leads to a definition." That came from the link you posted.Wikidudeman (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. In a section on making a glossary of terms elsewhere in the article. That is not the same as linking to an entire article. Vanished user talk 15:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Object. Even first paragraph needs major rewriting. "Anabolic androgenic steroids or AAS are a class of natural and synthetic steroid hormones that promote cell growth and division, resulting in growth of several types of tissues, especially muscle and bone. Anabolic androgenic steroids have varying combinations of androgenic and anabolic properties, and are often referred to in medical texts as AAS (anabolic/androgenic steroids). Anabolism is the metabolic process that builds larger molecules from smaller ones.". Two successive sentences tell us that they're called "AAS"s. The second sentence is somewhere between redundant and tautological ("X does Y and is called X"). Then we've got two consencutive sentences with the same wikilink (anabolism). That last sentence seems like an intro to some other paragraph (beginning to talk about a specific idea introduced in previous sentence, not the end of the global lead paragraph. DMacks 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Object. There's a whole section entitled "List of anabolic compounds commonly used as ergogenic aids". It's got list of other pages. What are the entries on this list (generic drugs and their brand-names?). More important: what's an "ergogenic aid" (this is the first use of that term on the page)? DMacks 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
DMacks, I will correct that.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Lead still needs major overhaul. "Anabolic androgenic steroids or AAS are a class of natural and synthetic steroid hormones that promote cell growth and division, resulting in growth of several types of tissues, especially muscle and bone. Anabolism is the metabolic process that builds larger molecules from smaller ones. Anabolic androgenic steroids have varying combinations of androgenic and anabolic properties." Sentences 2 and 3 are at best in the wrong order (finish explaining what "AAS" are before going into more detail about each specific "A"). But it sentence 3 overly redundant and unnecessary at all? Sentence 2 still seems out-of-place, being an introduction to one specific aspect that is not followed up until much later...why define one (and only one) of the three words in the title a sentence before one that has links to its (and others') main pages? DMacks 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"List of anabolic compounds" now at least says what the items are, but still needs major actual writing, not just a header+list. Are those things in parens commercial names, brands, companies? street-names for the drugs, formulations, etc (I can answer for now: "a mixture of those")? Are they just anabolic Are they just drugs or also naturally-occuring compounds that have this activity? Are they juststeroid compounds, or also other structural classes of anabolic "compounds"? DMacks 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Object I recommend labeling the article with WP:NPOV. Chrisbak 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikidudeman has made considerable improvements to the article and he should be commended for it. But I think the article needs a little more work to reach featured article status. There are several cases where the article contradicts itself: 1) in the Biochemical Mechanism section it states that "...the mechanism of action is not completely understood and there are a few accepted mechanisms..." but later says "The mechanisms of action differ depending on the specific anabolic steroid..." which indicates known mechanisms of action. 2) The Use and Abuse section states "Most users do not compete in any sports" and then later "steroid use also seems to occur among adolescents especially by those in sports." The article contains many grammatical errors, some of which I have attempted to correct in the two sections I copyedited - but this kind of thing probably requires someone with better English writing skills than me. I'm also concerned that the article shifts awkwardly between common English and more scientific-jargon-rich phrases that don't mean much to a non-expert, particularly in referenced statements (Are these phrases taken from the journal articles themselves?). One example is given above in Vanished user's comments. Much of the article seems US-centric to me as well. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Support now. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Edgar, Thank you for your help. I will fix what you've listed. However one thing, The sentence about most users not being in sports is true as is the fact that most adolescents who use are in sports. There's a difference here.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I also want to point out one important thing. I do not believe I need to explain every single thing I mention in the article as long as I link to it's proper wikipedia page. This is how it seems to work on all wikipedia articles. If I mention hypertrophy for instance, I don't need to explain what hypertrophy is and how it works. I just link to it's article. I have read many featured articles and this is how they seem to work.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You can only do that if the term is generally understood. If it's a rare term, particularly with as many rare terms as this article uses, you're basically asking the reader to jump to another page twice a paragraph just to be able to understand you. With the number of unexplained terms you use, you may as well link to a medical text in the first paragraph, then say there's there's no need to presume they're not all medical students, because they can always study the medical text until they're familiar with everything, then read the article. Vanished user talk 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam. That's how Wikipedia works. Look at any featured article. They all work that way, they all mention non-laymen terms and link to their relevant articles that explain said terms. Look at the article on DNA which is also a featured article. It works the same way. It has numerous non-laymen terms and that it doesn't explain, rather simply links to their own articles. Examples being "prokaryotes", "spliceosomes", "heterocyclic compounds", and "exonucleases" just to name a few. None of these terms are laymen terms. None of them are explained. They're all linked to their own pages. These are all "rare terms" as you put it. All unexplained. I believe your objections aren't very valid.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Another article that does the same thing (one that you list as being interested in) is chock full of unexplained and rare scientific terms no laymen would understand The article is Evolution.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And that's why evolution was demoted from FA. Vanished user talk 12:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link for that? Just about every scientific article on Wikipedia works the same way including DNA, RNA interference, Acetic acid, Big Bang , etc. All of which are featured articles.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"It has been decided in the past that even technical articles should be - at least partially - accessible to layman. (And, to be frank - evolution is not nearly as technical as the math articles that inspired the previous discussion.)" Admittedly, there's a staement that technical terms can be wikilinked (but not in the lead). However, this is being done to excess here. Vanished user talk 13:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I just read that. The article wasn't removed because it didn't explain the terms it used. Only 1 comment said that and it specified that they weren't wikilinked. All of the terms in this article that are scientific are wikilinked if there is a wikipedia page for them. Let me repeat myself, Just about every scientific article on Wikipedia works the same way including DNA, RNA interference, Acetic acid, Big Bang , etc. All of which are featured articles. I suggest you Cross out your past criticism that I have so far fixed including this criticism of unexplained terms. Change your vote as needed.Wikidudeman (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions. My objection stands. Vanished user talk 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I also fail to see how the article is "US-centric". I mention that Anabolic steroids are controlled in other countries than the U.S. Including Britain and Canada. I don't see how this implies US-centricity. The "Movement for decriminalization" section clearly states that this is a movement occurring within countries that have criminalized Anabolic steroids, especially the United states. This isn't "US-Centric" if it makes that clear. Please give me an example of how it is US-Centric.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Because you give no detail to any country but the US. You constantly refer to detailed U.S. legislation, movements in the US, and so on. Canada and the UK are mentioned briefly in one sentence, on the rest of the world you are silent. Vanished user talk 12:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That's simply because there aren't that many sources out there that detail the laws of numerous other countries. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, I think you have addressed many of my concerns. In scientific articles it's certainly a fine line between explaining technical terms, and getting side-tracked. In terms of my US-centric comment, I guess my thought was that a shift of emphasis more towards international anti-doping agencies and/or international athletic competition rules would be beneficial for the article. As for the apparent contradiction in terms of users and sports, I see from your explanation that I misread that bit. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You can cross out your previous criticism that I have addressed and change your vote if you want. Like this by wrapping <del>...</del> around it.Wikidudeman (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, since I didn't really "vote" to begin with, I'll just say that I don't have any remaining objections. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You can vote for Support then. I doubt the other people who voted will either cross out what I changed or even change their votes, So I'll probably have to renominate it again in a week or so.Wikidudeman (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the structure of the article that really bothers me. All the clinical side-effects and long-term health risks should be clearly spelled out with as much medical jargon as is necessary to explain the subject matter. If there are sharp disagreements between researchers on those side-effects and long-term health risks, then the differences have to be explained and the structure of the article should high-light the differences to make the article coherent. Also there are too many vague generalities. Chrisbak 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Chrisbak, That's precisely what the article does. It lists the side effects, lists when and how they occur, and lists the disagreements among the medical community concerning the side effects. It does all of this. It uses medical jargon when is necessary and links to the appropriate articles that explain the jargon. Moreover, What "vague generalities" are there? Be specific. Very specific.Wikidudeman (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest the article should be about a clinically important but - if abused - potentially dangerous class of drugs. Perhaps there is difference of medical opinion that this class of drugs is in fact dangerous - that would be fine to include. However could reviewers consider then, why does the article start off explaining a history of performance-enhancing drugs? It sounds like perhaps contributors to this article really want this article to be titled Performance-enhancing drugs, which would be fine with me. That's one reason I wonder why the article isn't labeled for WP:NPOV. However I can't spend more time on this deliberation right now - you may consider my objection as RELEASED.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisbak (talk • contribs).
Then does that mean you support it?Wikidudeman (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
DMacks, Let's discuss it at the bottom. That's easier for me. I reworded the introduction a little bit. Tell me what you think.
As far as the "List of anabolic compounds". I changed the name of it to "List of anabolic androgenic compounds" and added a little thing at the top to let people know which are the chemical vs trademarked names. Tell me what you think about this way I did it. Or give me ideas on how to make it better. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I just hacked on the lead to be non-redundant and flow. DMacks 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
List is not present now, so no objections based on it:) DMacks 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"Administration" needs major rewrite. It's unclear whether the "causing liver damage" clause is talking about an effect of the 17-position mod or an effect that the 17-position mod alleviates. DMacks 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That whole "Administration" section is misplaced...it's theme is not the biochemical mechanisms of the AAS per se, would be better in the "Medical uses" section. Conversely, the "Anabolic and virilizing effects" and "Possible unwanted side effects" sections (and maybe the "Minimization of side effects" section too) are strictly about biochemical mechanisms, so might be good subsections of that main one. There are several top-level sections about legal issues; might be useful to have them all as subsections of one that has a brief general introduction to the whole issue. DMacks 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
These really seem not to coincide with Wikipedia style guidelines but your own personal preferences. I believe the "Administration" subsection fits well with the "Biochemical mechanisms" simply because it has to do with the mechanics of steroids as well as the way they are put into the body. However, I changed the titles so that they would fit together better. With this change the "Biochemical Mechanisms" and "Administration" both fit under the section of "Mechanisms of action" so nothing else needs to be changed.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Careful here...FAC asks for community input on the quality of the article. It is my "personal preference" that section order, hierarchy, organization make sense and have logical flow as I understand the subject of each section after reading it. I'm not going to oppose this article if others think its organization is good, but I'll only abstain, as I feel the current article's organization is not of high quality. DMacks 05:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Do my recent changes in it's hierarchy not suit your preferences? With my recent changes the "Biochemical Mechanisms" and "Administration" both fit under the section of "Mechanisms of action" so nothing else needs to be changed.Wikidudeman (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Still feels off to me, but now I can appreciate how it could make sense as-is. Objection on this point withdrawn. DMacks 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem: excessive overlinking repeatedly to the same wikipages. About ten links to "Controlled substances act", several to "controlled substances". I noticed it while trying to figure out why so many "See also" links sounded so familiar...they're often in the body-text already (or could be with a single sentence in an appropriate place). DMacks 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I just removed several redundant links in the article.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned some more "controlled substances" linking/naming issues. I now Support: good coverage of science for both technical and lay readers and of social/legal issues, good writing. DMacks 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Support: I think the article has improved a lot over the last three weeks. It is well balanced and has many relevant up-to-date references. Cryptophile 21:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This looks like 4 supports (including myself) and 1 oppose. Is this enough to make it a featured article?Wikidudeman (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I won't object outright as I've not read the article thoroughly, but I have several comments:
Why is the article semi-protected? Vandalism? Anonymous POV-pushing?
Why is the lead sentence (Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids) capitalized?
"Anabolic" and "catabolic" should link to anabolism and catabolism, and the links to the first instances of the nouns could be removed.
"(assuming a positive nitrogen balance)" and "…cross-sectional areas of muscle cells." Further explanation would be in order here.
"The most widespread uses of anabolic steroids…" The most widespread medical uses? I don't think this would be redundant to the previous sentence, and it would be a clearer lead into non-medical use.
The prose needs work throughout. A few "choice" examples from the lead alone:
  • "AAS work by binding to androgen receptors of muscle cells which has the effect of increasing protein synthesis."
  • "Anabolic steroids can produce physiological effects including increases in protein synthesis, muscle mass, strength, appetite and bone growth." This seems redundant to the first sentenc of the paragraph; can't you reword/merge?
  • "…have also been associated with side effects when administered in excessive doses and these include…"
  • "Today anabolic steroids are controversial…"
  • The controlled substances sentence is quite convoluted, and could be reworded: no need for scare quotes around controlled substances, "listed as"→"listed in" on "listed under", "as well as…who also have…" sounds strange…
From "History":
  • "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." Run-on sentence, anyone?
  • "The word "doping" is thought to of originated…" Typo. This sentence could also use improvement.
  • "In addition, an entire market for counterfeit drugs…" Sounds off to me. As opposed to a "partial" market?
A serious copyedit is in order here. I'll read the article more thoroughly later and check for Manual of Style compliance and whatnot—please don't be discouraged by my comments. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is probably protected because it's regularly vandalized. I didn't request it be protected. I made some minor changes in the lead to reflect what you said. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. If you like, it might be a good idea to ask an editor uninvolved with the article's progress to go over it and copyedit. A fresh pair of eyes is always welcome in improving an article to FA quality. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's just recently been through a peer review and several editors in this F.A. have gone over it a few times. I don't think I'll be able to find anyone else to look it over and copy edit it.Wikidudeman (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd post here to see if/when this will be determined to be promoted to F.A. I think the tally is 4-5 supports, 1 oppose and maybe 2 neutrals.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Besides the aforementioned prose issues and the need for an independent copyedit (which is serious), the article sections and structure don't conform to suggested sections at WP:MEDMOS (which, in addition to 2, raises questions of 1b, comprehensive). There is no consistency in references; most of the footnotes at the bottom of the list are unformatted, don't have complete info, and don't have access dates. Different styles of last access dates are used. Please see WP:CITE/ES. External links need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. The prose is very informal in many places, and there is a lot of uncited text. Solo years should not be wikilinked, and there are a lot of wikilinking needs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, You say that "most of the footnotes are not formated at the bottom". This isn't true. Every single footnote used is formated to it's type of link per WP:CITET. Pubmed articles are formated to their types as are website articles. They're all formatted. Moreover, Nearly ALL of them have access dates. Why did you say they didn't have access dates? Only a few don't have access dates and even then they are formatted. I can't identify what the other problems are which you are referring to. Being more specific would help.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Now every single reference is formated and they all have access dates. Also, What different styles of last access dates are used?Wikidudeman (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up your footnotes. Many were missing data such as publisher, date of publication, PMID, author, and format. Last access date is only used with a URL (not with a PMID - they don't require a last access date). Clearing out the clutter and empty parameters removed 4KB from the article. Some sources are still completely unformatted (HR 4658). Some are still missing publisher and author (News from DEA, Congressional Testimony, 03/16/04). Book sources do not have page numbers. Some of the sources do not appear reliable: mesomorphosis.com, hjem.get2net.dk/JamesBond . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Many links that come from DEA or Congressional testimony etc don't have listed authors. They're just press releases and there is no specific "author". So it would be impossible to list an author.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Can you answer my previous questions and be a bit more specific so that I can improve the article?Wikidudeman (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes are still not formatted — I'm not sure what your question is. Here's an example of a footnote that needs attention:
  • HR 4658
Far more important is to address the sections discussed in WP:MEDMOS, address issues of the quality and reliability of sources, and obtain an independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. --Yankees76 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a. The lead doesn't inspire me with confidence:
  • Second sentence: "AAS increase protein synthesis within muscle cells which results in anabolism (growth) of muscle size." Comma before "which" would be easier on our readers.

Blooper in the third sentence: "In addition to anabolic effects, AAS also have"—Not two additive items ... While we're on the overuse of "also": "Anabolic steroids have also been associated with side effects"—get rid of it, and most of the others in the text. "Anabolic steroids are considered "controlled substances" in a few countries, including the United States, where they are listed as Schedule III in the Controlled Substances Act, as well as Canada, Britain, Australia, Argentina and Brazil who also have laws controlling their use and distribution. They are also banned by all major sports bodies including the Olympics, the NBA, the NHL, the NFL, UEFA and FIFA." "Also" can go. The referenct for "they" is unclear: laws, the countries, or the AASs? "The United States" is not linked (nor should it be), so why are the others blue? Ration the links, because you don't want to dilute the useful ones. Logical issue: Are AASs listed "as Schedule III" in those "other countries"? No, so better to enclose the point in parentheses rather than commas, as a sharper punctuation. "As well as" --> "and in". Comma after "Brazil", and countries are not people, so "which", not "who". Generally, there are not enough commas throughout for easy reading.

  • How do you stimulate puberty?
  • "While there are numerous health issues associated with excessive anabolic steroid use, public understanding of the true risks remains limited." I'm suspicious of the use of "true"; what does it mean? And WRT to cohesion, does it refer back to "numerous health issues"? If so, replace "true risks" with "these issues".

Fresh eyes are needed for a thorough massage of the text. So much work has already gone into it, so why not? It needs a skilled copy-editor, this one does. Research edit-history pages of medical FAs to identify good WPians for this. Tony 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: The majority of the prose still requires university-level knowledge to be able to read. Even basic suggestions on how to improve this - listing point by point difficulties - were dismissed out-of-hand with a claim that it was unnecessary. Why on earth is this article still being considered? Vanished user talk 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The inadvertently discovery by German scientists needs a little bit of source (Adolf Butenandt and Lavoslav Ružička would be the best starting point) . The synthesis and production would benefit from some chemistry like is it a total synthesis or starts the synthesis from a substance from the biologal pool? The squalene zipper and the biosynthesis would make good images for the text. The chemical modifications to the natural steroides of the synthetic ones should also get some words (availability and pharmaco kinetics)--Stone 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I will see what I can do to improve them.Wikidudeman (talk) 10:53, 16 May 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.