Talk:Suzuki RE5

Two different approaches
The new section Two different approaches, comparing this to a certain British rotary design, needs some quality referencing to keep the section from being original research. Is this based on engineering comparison published elsewhere? — Brianhe (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Arrivisto has been improving refs and volunteered to work on merging this into Rotary engine, thanks very much. — Brianhe (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support moving to Wankel engine if the comparison can be properly sourced. BTW, ""Cycle World" Magazine spring 1971" and ""Bike" Magazine autumn 1974" really do not work as citations. Article names, article author names, editor names (especially if the author's name is not given in the article) and page numbers are also needed. Further, while I am not familiar with Bike magazine, I am quite certain that Cycle World is a monthly magazine, and therefore ""Cycle World" Magazine spring 1971" becomes a particularly useless citation, as it narrows the source down to somewhere in one of three issues of the magazine. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree about moving this section. I am the original author of the full Suzuki RE5 article and it was posted for me by wiki editor Stefan. Stefan also posted all the original article citations after I provided them. I have made no move to edit the new section "Two different approaches" but I do believe, while interesting, that it's not appropriate for an article on the Suzuki RE5. Readers can make their own comparisons by researching various types or the "two different approaches" can be moved, as has been suggested, to an area in the Wikipedia where it is more relevant. Gtregs75 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)gtregs75


 * I've at last got round to doing as Brianhe suggested. As soon as I find the source again, I'll put an exact date for the Bike article. Arrivisto (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)