Instructor comments

1) Content

A) Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

Introduction section is missing, but would be beneficial as it should summarize the information presented at the current article and give links to related pages.

B) Do the contents of each section justify its length?

Yes

C) Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further references?

Mostly. There should be a section listing links to the related pages (i.e. doping in sports) and organizations such as WADA.

D) Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

Yes. The authors did extensive job in preparing a list of banned compounds and describing the rules and practices by MLB, NFL and NHL.

E) Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?

Mostly not although there is an overview of doping in MLB and there are webpages on doping in sport

2) Figures

A) Are the figures original and of high quality?

No chance to judge. The authors posted a figure that was removed due to the copyright violation.

B) Are the figures informative and add to the text?

No chance to judge as the figure was removed. However, providing Logo of professional sport organizations is not particularly informative as far as the discussion of doping is concerned.

C) Are the substance and/or protein structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read? N/A

3) References

A) Are the references complete?

Yes

B) Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

Yes

4) Overall Presentation

Overall, it is a well-prepared and researched article. It can be further improved by including an introduction explaining and defining the scope of the article. In addition, the authors should address the issue with the Figure/Scheme/Table and come up with a way to introduce it without violating copyright.

PN 02:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Good work with creating a new article. A few suggestions here before you post this to the main space.

It's great that you included the link to pages like Doping in Sports as See Also pages. It would be better if you can refer and link to them in your texts.
I see that you have claimed the figures are under the Public Domain when you uploaded them. But when I go to the source you linked at https://infogr.am/2014_15_mlbminor_league_suspensions, I did not see that the original author mentioned that this is under public domain. Did you contact the author and have the authorization from her to do so? If not, you cannot use the figures. What you can do is to take the readings from the figure and re-plot them. You will still need to cite the source of the data in the caption and the figure description. But since data is not copyrightable, you will be safe regarding copyright that way. Please do correct this problem before you post to the main space.
I know your original proposal is to have this article as a "List of..." article. Let's see if other Wikipedians would help us make it a "List of..." article when you post it.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The date error in your reference is because you used a wrong dash in the access date. Changing them to the short dash like 2016-03-10 will help. ChemLibrarian (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]