Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive3

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 promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

---

Anabolic steroid

previous FACs: 1 · 2 · 3

I'm nominating this article for Featured Article (again) and I hope that this time it finally meets FA criteria. It has been through a lot of changes in the past and in my opinion meets all of the FA criteria. It's very extensive in coverage, very NPOV covering all sides of AAS and AAS use, Very clearly written and formatted for clear reading. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Since the last FAC, this article came to Good article review. At the time, it had some weaknesses in terms of the reliability of some of its sources, its neutrality, and some of its prose. However, it was so obviously close to being excellent that several reviewers contributed to the article to get it into shape. Since then, I have noticed a very productive working relationship between Wikidudeman and MastCell on the article. From what I have seen, these editors have slightly different points of view, but a great deal of mutual respect, and their work on the article has enhanced its neutrality immensely. To me this is a model for what the Wikipedia approach can achieve.

The article is thorough in its coverage, informative, well sourced, and easy to read. I find many medicine/biology articles difficult to read because of the insistance to use the correct and precise medical/biological term. In several places, this article demonstrates a very positive compromise in which more informal lay terminology is used, but a more precise term is linked: this provides a way to make the article accurate without making it unreadable.

Congratulations to Wikidudeman (especially) on making this such a good piece of work. Geometry guy 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like this article. It reads very well and doesn't go into highly technical terminology while still covering the necessary science in language that should be easy to understand by most people. While I am not the most anal-retentive copy editor on wikipedia, and thereby didn't go through the prose with a fine-toothed comb as I am certain other FA reviewers are sure to do, I did not find any major glaring violations of the manual of style, and I believe the article meets the Featured Article criteria (I did check the images, though! ;-).

There's a couple of minor issues, mainly pertaining to reference citations and verifiability, but these shouldn't be too hard to fix.

• While the sentence, "This testicular hormone was first identified by Karoly Gyula David, E. Dingemanse, J. Freud and Ernst Laqueur in a May 1935 paper, 'On Crystalline Male Hormone from Testicles (Testosterone).'" actually verifies itself, in a sense, I think it would nonetheless help to actually include the citation after the sentence of where the paper is published, and possibly a link to it if it's available. Stating that it was merely a "may 1935 paper" isn't quite enough; was it published in a notable journal, or was it just thrown together and self-published by some nut with a lot of money?

This information is in the secondary sources cited, but I have added citations to the primary sources as well. Geometry guy 10:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto for the other paper, "A Method for Preparing Testosterone from Cholesterol.", mentioned in the same paragraph.

Ref added. Tim Vickers 03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Testosterone propionate is mentioned in a letter to the editor of Strength and Health magazine in 1938" -- cite the letter to the editor (magazine citation needed).

• In the image of testosterone bound to the androgen receptor, the drug is not easily visible in the binding site. Perhaps the image could be modified to better show where the drug is (instead of using sticks, maybe put the testosterone model using a space-filling representation). This is a really minor issue (if it can't be fixed, don't worry about it).

Fixed. Tim Vickers 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• The first two bullet points under 'medical uses', as well as the last one (gender dysmorphia), are uncited.

Refs added. Tim Vickers 19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the paragraph relating to Arnold Schwarzenegger's heart valve defect and its alleged connection to his earlier steroid use, I'm having trouble with the statement, "Some have assumed this was due to anabolic steroids." I think we're assuming that some people have assumed it was due to anabolic steroids, and without a citation backing this up, this would violate WP:OR.

That's all. Other than that, the article is in great shape! Cheers! Dr. Cash 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So everyone thinks it's FA criteria? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There have only been two comments so far. Can you fix the magazine cite? Geometry guy 10:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Strength and Health magazine in 1938" one? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Geometry guy 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's actually been there since the article first began before I started to working on it. Right now I'm unable to find any sources to it due to the massive amount of wikipedia clone websites saying the same thing but also with no sources. I don't doubt it's true but being unable to find a source we might should delete it if one isn't found in the future. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no Google source for that, if you filter out the Wiki clones (link) then there isn't anything useful remaining. Tim Vickers 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like my suggested revisions have been addressed, so I am removing the "(pending)" comment and going with full support now. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • Aren't anabolic steroids banned in track and field on an IAAF level? The UFC is hardly as important as important as for example the UCI, the ITF, the WTA, or the ICC. So why is it given as an example for an organization that has banned anabolic steroids? Haven't these other organizations banned them?
  • "some steroids cause an increase in bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol." This article is about anabolic steroids. Are they among the steroids that cause this?
  • "In countries where anabolic steroids are strictly regulated, some have called for less regulation.". WP:WEASEL
  • Last paragraph of "Mechanism of action" is unreferenced"
  • Most of the studies cited in the "Non-medical use and abuse" section only cover the United States or in one case Australia, in another the English-speaking world. Yet they are used as if they applied worldwide.
  • "When taking anabolic steroids, either for medical or other reasons, it is desirable to minimize any adverse effects." Obviously... That's what adverse means.
  • "One possible origin of the idea that steroids are extremely dangerous is from claims that Lyle Alzado died from brain cancer caused by anabolic steroids." The claim that many people think steroids are dangerous because of Alzado is not covered by the source. I also highly doubt this claim.--Carabinieri 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Addressed in order presented:

I've got rid of the UFC and added in the WTA and the ITF.

YES, Some anabolic steroids do cause increase in bad cholesterol and decrease in good. It's referenced.

In the countries where criticism of criminalization goes, The "Some" isn't a weasel word since it's clarified and referenced. It's only a weasel word if it's not clarified or referenced.

I've added references to the paragraph in the Mechanism of action paragraph. I can't find a source for the last sentence of that paragraph, Perhaps Tim Vickers can find it.

I've added key words to the "Non medical use and abuse" section to clarify.

Haha, I agree with that. I've reworded it.

I've reworded the Lyle Alzado section so that it doesn't say that the myth about him having Brain cancer due to AAS caused the idea that steroids are highly deadly.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Was this article promoted to FA status? A star was added to the article stating that it's FA status. Has it been promoted? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:15, 8 October 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.