Edit: I believe this is not a duplicate of Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed?, because that question asks about citing Wikipedia for knowledge that is very basic but is nonetheless highly relevant to the core subject of the paper. My question is about citing Wikipedia for something that is, by contrast, unrelated to the core subject matter of the paper, and thus is trivial in the sense of being unimportant rather than trivial in the sense of being common or basic knowledge.
Many previous questions on this site touch on citing Wikipedia, but none of them seem to me to address this specific issue.
I am writing a statistics paper. The focus and original work of the paper is abstract and theoretical. To introduce some of those ideas, I have a silly little thought experiment involving golf, and choosing which properties one wants one's club to have.
To be clear, nothing about the paper's actual focus is relevant to golf. The golf example is just a helpful, concrete way to introduce the perspective I am taking in the paper on certain statistical techniques.
To flesh out this example, I need to be able to describe the various options one has when choosing a golf club (head material, shaft length, etc.). I have learned from Wikipedia everything I need to know about these options in order to describe my silly little thought experiment. Would it be inappropriate to cite Wikipedia in a case like this? Would reviewers/readers raise an eyebrow at my doing so? Do I really need to spend time reading primary sources on various golf head materials just to be able to include this silly thought experiment in my paper?