Gym post

The gym has replaced the cardio bikes I liked with ones that don't have built-in fans, and that instead of letting me press a button marked "7" to get level 7, make me hit an up arrow six times. (And they don't have as good holders for water bottle and reading material.) Still, they seem ergonomically similar, so I will manage.

( numbers )

Does this actually constitute a bibliographic reference?

This is in a paper I am proofreading, freelance. I am querying it:

"10. $name1, $name2, $name3, Vegas, $name4. Submitted to a conference for blind review. Details omitted to preserve anonymity."

The referencing sentence says "The implementation of the algorithm and the experimental platform are described in more detail in a previous work.¹⁰"

As I understand it, the purpose of a reference to the authors' previous work is to enable the reader to find the information. This completely fails at that. (I think it also fails to establish priority, but I may be mistaken there.)