# Talk:Florida-class battleship

This review is transcluded from Talk:Florida class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

You say that the Floridas were improved over the Delawares, but how?
Convert the displacement in the infobox. I've always liked the convert|LT|MT template myself, but that's just me.
Consider using the main gun's designation in the main body. Mark 5 or whatever it was.
Did these ships have the usual problems with casemated guns mounted too low for operations in heavy seas?
I'll be offline for a couple of weeks beginning on the 19th, but I think we can get through this if you've got the time. If not I'll put it on hold until I get back. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sturmvogel. I fixed the first three points; neither Hore nor Conway's say anything about the casemate guns being particularly wet (for comparison, both mention the problems the Iron Duke-class battleships had with their casemates in heavy seas - the first ship I could think of that had this problem). I haven't seen anything elsewhere (for instance, the DANFS articles) to that effect either. Conway's does say that the preceding Delwares had problems with their secondary battery being very wet. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
All the casement based secondaries in US Battleships were very wet according to my sources which was why they were moved up to the main deck. Friedman cites that the forward sections in the Florida class were very wet. Tirronan (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an ambiguity between the Ship Info Box and the Ships Listing in terms of Shipbuilders one does not talk to the other Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)