# Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (05)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Why is the commission date listed as May 1916 when her service history gives us an exact timeline, she had to have been commissioned on 9th of May 1916 as it is the only date that fits the timeline of events 146.200.226.89 (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Because there is no source for the specific date. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)