Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weight training/archive1

Weight training
Self-nomination. This area of Wikipedia has been very neglected, and I have been trying to bring it up to scratch. The peer review process really helped this article achieve a high standard. I want to see it become as good as it possibly can be, so I will work hard to address any new issues identified here. So, what do you think of it? GeorgeStepanek\talk  22:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work on fixing those and citing facts. The article could use some further copyediting, but what article couldn't.  I don't see any major problems and what is there is great. Object. Very few, if any facts cited directly to their source.  This is a big problem only with broad, sweeping statements that could be disputed like "is the most efficient technique for developing the strength and size of skeletal muscles." Most efficient in what sense? Time, money, effort? And according to whom? Other examples include much of the benefits section, but especially "Moreover, intense workouts elevate the metabolism for several hours following the workout". That is widely accepted, but how can we know it is true? The weight training culture is full of beliefs based on practical experience without much evidence to support the beliefs. One of Wikipedia's best articles should not fall into that trap. 2.) The common misconceptions section is a bit odd because the subheadings are not misconceptions. Also, with the subheadings italicized for emphasis, that is a bit POV. The facts should stand on their own and let the reader decide. 3.) What about things like medicine ball and sand bag training where the point is to improve explosive force of the muscles, not bulk?  Is that simply a form of isotonic training? I thought it was separate, but can't recall.  So yes, I am asking for a high level for this article, and while what is there now is very good from what I know of the subject, I feel it can become much better with the above. I will certainly support wth those fixes. - Taxman 15:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very helpful suggestions. I'll see what I can do (on Monday) to link to studies that support the assertions made in the article. The intro paragraph should summarise the remainder of the article, but I have not yet elaborated on and justified the "weight training is the most efficient technique for..." assertion. This will be rectified soonest.
 * I added about a dozen citations to support the main assertions made in the article. Taxman, have I have I managed to catch all of the "broad, sweeping statements" that concerned you? Some of the assertions have been phrased a little more carefully, and I also removed one statement regarding RSI that I found couldn't be supported. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was excellent. Though perhaps the external links used to cite those facts could be collected at the end in the references section if they are of overall good quality. - Taxman 15:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. I had great difficulty finding good titles for these sections. Sfahey has just changed them from e.g. "weight training is not the same as bodybuilding" to e.g. " "weight training is the same as bodybuilding" "&mdash;but I don't like that either. It's too easy to misread them by taking their literal meanings. How about changing them to e.g. "weight training is often confused with bodybuilding"?
 * Whoa! The way you wrote that sounds like I told a whopper. What I did was to restate the titles AS misconceptions, and put them in quotes to show that that was just what they were. I know that George S. realizes this, but the way he reported the change suggests the opposite. BTW, if you change to the last suggested phrase, then they're no longer really "misconceptions". I think the quotation marks under the title "misconceptions" make the intent pretty obvious. A compromise (unneeded, I think, 'cause it "weasels" out) might be to rephrase the "miscons" as questions. Sfahey 02:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was not my intention to imply that at all: I was just trying to explain why I found this issue so difficult. I actually rather like the idea of rephrasing them as questions, because it falls nicely between the POV poles of "is" and "is not". It lets people make up their own minds. The header and text should probably be adjusted to match this format. GeorgeStepanek\talk  03:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * These headers have now been rephrased as questions, and it does read much better. Thank you for coming up with this cunning idea. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is better. - Taxman 15:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. Yes, I should mention these items of gym apparatus. Also the Swiss ball, which is commonly used in conjunction with weights.
 * I addressed this (good) suggestion too.Sfahey 02:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And I added info and a picture of the Swiss ball. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * We just call those "exercise balls", but I'm sure there are lots of names for them. Google shows both names are used, but that "exercise ball is about twice as common. I see the new plyometrics section, that is great. I couldn't think of the name for it. I can't believe that is not an article. Care to make that your next FA? - Taxman 15:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4. Regarding your change to the disclaimer: ironically, this article has been reviewed by a medical professional: Sfahey. But Wikipedia being what it is, unreviewed changes could appear at any time, so there has to be some sort of disclaimer. Hmm, is there a standard template for this? If not, then perhaps it's time to create one. GeorgeStepanek\talk  22:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The article now references the main Wikipedia medical disclaimer. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support This article is comprehensive and accurate, and with the pictures now added to illustrate most of the regimens it is quite practical as well.  The writers did a fine job of avoiding the sort of foolish generalities and unfounded recommendations which abound in this topic (such as "no pain, no gain", ONLY free weights make you "practically stronger"). I think the above objections have been well-addressed (n.b. it now reads "effective", not "efficient"), except regarding the documentation of individual facts. I looked up several of them, including the one about the met. rate increasing after a workout, and think that if the references (as they do) confirm them, it's hard to say which ones warrant an individual footnote, as would a direct quote or piece of "new" information. Gosh, but I ramble! I am "sort of" an expert on this material, and the article is certainly good enough as is for me. Sfahey 16:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, a very comprehensive and interesting article. Lisiate 20:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - wow! This has really improved since I first saw the article... I fully support it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)