 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Infobox
editThis article needs an infobox. Cla68 21:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
references and citations
editPlease consider using inline citations that include the original language from your reference. It appears some of this language is original research as well, please refrain from including opinions that are not supported by verifiable references.Awotter (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ro. 53 prototype
editI reverted the edit that said it never flew because the article doesn't imply that it did or didn't, it says that it never entered production. The original editor needs to provide specific reference notes of the original Italian so they can be checked if questioned, that's a very good policy guideline, especially in this case. If you have a reference that states specifically it didn't fly, please post that. Awotter (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article originally [1] stated that the Ro.53 was unbuilt - although it , and the subsequent revision to refer to the Ro.53 "prototype" (which does suggest it was built) are not cited. None of the paper references that refer to the Ro.57 that I have refer to the Ro.53 at all. [2] (according to Babelfish) refers to the Ro.57 being based on the previously rejected Ro.53 project. It doesn't say whether the Ro.53 was built or not. It would probably be better to refer to the Ro.57 being based on the Ro.53 design, without going into whether it was built or not - at least until someone can check some more detailed references. Nigel Ish (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)