Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anabolic steroid/archive1

Notified: All six Wikiprojects involved [1][2][3][4][5][6] Wikidudeman [7]

I am nominating this featured article for review because if is not that well organized, some of it is confusing, and it is still limited in scope.

Does not discuss trend in usage.
Starts by says they are "a class of steroid hormones" yet on the steroid hormones page are not listed as one of the five classes
"related to the hormone testosterone" does that include testosterone? And a couple others should be listed in the lead
"stimulate bone growth" is mentioned in the lead however this is no longer done due to growth hormone and the article should reflect this
medical uses section is a list. Should be presented as prose. Some uses are unreferenced. How effective for all these indications should be mentioned. A number of conditions are historical, some are in research stages, and others listed were found to be not effective.
Mechanism of action and Pharmacodynamics are listed under side effects?
Improvement tags are present
Nothing on there veterinary use?
Indications should come after history
I do not like this wording as fairly low is vague. "It is difficult to determine what percent of the population in general have actually used anabolic steroids, but the number seems to be fairly low" This ref says it is widespread [8]
Too much primary research is cited rather than reviews. These review for example seems to contradict the above [9][10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify significant contributors, and link the Project notifications at the top of this page so they can be verified. (See WP:FAR instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rawdealsteroids4.jpg: the "source link" links to the source for File:Rd17.jpg not for itself. All other images OK, but alt text required. DrKiernan (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]