Template:Did you know nominations/Weight plate

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Weight plate

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that 45-pound (20 kg) weight plates have been known to weigh as little as 38 pounds (17 kg) or as much as 59 pounds (27 kg)?

• Reviewed: Machida Hisanari

Created by Father Goose (talk). Self-nominated at 00:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

• On it.
  
  Long enough (~4.6k elig. chars.); new enough; cited, though not sure why you rounded source's 37½ up to 38; forgot redirect from bumper plates but easy enough to fix; over-reliant on internet sourcing, but that can be fixed in time and doesn't affect DYK status; earwig finds copyvio unlikely; QPQ done. Great addition for something we should have had years ago. Thanks! — LlywelynII 07:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• The footnotes are all bare URLs and should be formatted, per Rule D3. Conversion templates should also be added to the hook. Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Fixed I knew there was a automatic ref-formatting tool around somewhere. Thanks to the pointer to it via D3.
  Convert templates added except for the first instance, where "45-pound" is being used as an adjectival phrase and the convert template mangles the grammar; kg conversion added manually. (Oh, there's template syntax that handles that case.)--Father Goose (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for filling in those references. Now that we see who the publishers are, though, most of them don't look like independent or reliable sources, but commercial websites. @LlywelynII:, are you satisfied with the referencing for this article? Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• I note that for most of the citations involving commercial websites, the statement being supported is "products of that nature are available [for sale]". I did what I could to not emphasize any one retailer or manufacturer. Where possible, I used secondary sources.--Father Goose (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• And I've added additional secondary sources to further bolster and expand the article.--Father Goose (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was satisfied before. The quality of Mr Goose's sources and formatting wasn't the best but it's better to have this article than not, any sourcing is better than none, the hook was well sourced, and we needn't be overly strict because it's a new article and people will fix it down the road.
  
  That said, thanks for your patience, good humor, and improvements Mr Goose and thanks for your sharp eyes and helpful link Yon.
  
  Mr Goose, this isn't a subject that I expect to have massive coverage at Google Scholar (their loss: they should be doing more scholarship on topics like this) but do remember you can go to Google Books to do your search from there instead of just using the vanilla search engine. You'll (generally) get higher-quality results.
  
  Yon, remember that the purpose of well-done WP:RS is to insulate us against the bias, advertising, edit wars, and errors we had before sourcing popped up. The closest this article comes to that is mentioning Ivanko (but only to give context to a non-scientific but important finding their founder made) and Rippetoe, who is notable enough to have his own page, for a decent and sourced piece of advice he offers. You can hold up the nom out of distaste for the poor sourcing but remember (a) the nature of this topic and (b) the chilling effect on editors created by needless makework after they've already gone through the trouble of making a (in this case) fairly thorough and well-done article. Side note: It's ridiculous makework to have the editors copy/paste their sourcing for the hooks here but, if bare links are really important enough to hold up DYKs, we should move those links to the overview for the nomination creation page so editors see them as part of the checklist of things to make sure they've already done. We can't fault them for not seeing it in the middle of a list no one wades through and then we have to point it out by hand each time. — LlywelynII 00:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• @LlywelynII: thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate your efforts to welcome new editors and encourage the promotion of this article. I agree that WP:DYKSG is a sleeping bear that not many new (or old) editors get to, but I'm not sure we can ignore it as long as it's there. Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sure we can : ) You just forgot the reason for pages like that—to hammer n00bs with our superior policy knowledge when it's helpful and/or they're being unpleasant. Here, I don't see anything very wrong with the article but defer to you if you noticed something I missed. That said, it's not a bad idea to have the editors learn to clean up their references. I'd just suggest we highlight it where they'll see it or, y'know, reserve it for the hardcases. — LlywelynII 14:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)