Talk:Factor Bikes

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Factor's Hanzo track bike was priced at $97,979 so it would be too expensive to buy?

• Source: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/14/australian-track-cycling-team-paris-olympics-hanzo-bike-cost

• • Reviewed:

Created by Ericoides (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Ericoides (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC).

• New enough (Jan 6), long enough (6400 B), no copyvio (Earwig says 17.4%, and no close paraphrasing detected). Hook fact is easily interesting to a broad audience. One question, @Ericoides: can you explain why BikeRadar is a reliable source? — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing the review @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: you raise a very good question re Bike Radar. It's certainly not the BBC or the NYT, but in the world of high-end race bikes we're not spoiled for choice re high-quality reliable sources, with the details of most models not being given in the national press etc. We have to – and you'll see this in many other road bike articles similar to this one – lean on sources that may fall somewhat short of our standards. In this case I was careful to ensure that I didn't rely for the hook on anything other than a gold-plated RS (the Guardian), and that elsewhere the use of these less-than-ideal sources didn't push the company's marketing BS. Given that the only assertions made by Bike Radar that might be deemed dubious, albeit they're specifically attributed to the magazine, are in quotes and prefaced by "claimed" and "called", are the ones about the Factor001 (produced in 2007 in limited quanties as a training bike and ending up in London's Science Museum), we are probably on safeish ground, but do let me know if you need anything amended or revised and I'll get to work. Ericoides (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Makes sense. I'm not quite convinced that BikeRadar is reliable, but it is only used for a little bit of information. If others determine that the source is unreliable, it can be removed and the rest of the article will be solid. ALT0 verified in source and approved. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)