Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (05)

HMS Royal Sovereign (05) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 3, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Royal Sovereign (05) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Russian & Soviet / World War I / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Soviet Union: Military Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

Assessed for B

Article has been assessed for B-class. The only comment I can offer is that a little more context or clarification may be required as to the transfer to the Soviets...why were the British giving the Soviets a battleship, and how this related to Italian war repatriations (to which party)? -- saberwyn 23:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the British wanted to court Italy as a post-war ally, and to do so, they wanted to prevent overly harsh reparations from Italy to the Soviets. I saw this while trawling through google books - I'll have to see if I can track it back down so I can clarify the transfer issue. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement may be of some interest; it's the official line as of June 1945 as to why the Italian ships were retained. (Two main reasons: the Italian Navy was favourable to the Allies and these ships were already in service alongside Allied troops; and the ships were built for warm-water service, so were less useful for Soviet purposes). Andrew Gray (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (05)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
prose: (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. with its maximum thickness between 'A' and 'Y' barbettes - did you forget to put in how thick the amour was?

2. tasked with meeting Allied convoys in the Arctic Ocean and escort them into Kola - Suggest escorting them into Kola

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, it's saying that the diagonal armored bulkheads started where the maximum thickness of the belt stopped, and ran to the turrets on either end of the ship.

2. Sounds good to me, changed per your suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no other issues with the article. Passed, nice job Parsec. Thurgate (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful image

Saving this for later - here. Good resolution scan of the ONI recognition drawing. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So...

The RN inspectors judged that the turrets hadn't been rotated while used by the Soviets, yet we have a picture of it in Soviet use with one of its turrets turned? Widgetdog (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is captioned as having been taken no later than 30 May 1944, the date the ship was formally transferred. Presumably that turret returned to the centerline and was not moved thereafter. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]