# Talk:King Edward VII-class battleship

I feel that
All the King Edward VIIs had four 12-inch (305 mm) guns in two twin turrets and a secondary armament of twelve 6-inch (152 mm) guns on a displacement of 13,000 to 
should be
All these classes had four 12-inch (305 mm) guns in two twin turrets and a secondary armament of twelve 6-inch (152 mm) guns on a displacement of 13,000 to 
pietro151.29.249.152 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:King Edward VII-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this one. —Ed!(talk) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Ref 26 backs up what is cited in the text. Other offline references accepted in good faith.
It is broad in its coverage:
Are there any characteristics from these boats that were specifically improved upon in subsequent classes?
Added a couple of lines on this - in short, no, the Lord Nelsons were an entirely new design
Would think a unit cost would be useful on this article, though as I mentioned in the individual ship articles, that can be something hard to find.
As I said in the ship reviews you did, I don't generally like including this information based on the inflation problem.
"The reason multiple boiler arrangements were adopted was to compare the effectiveness of different boiler types." -- Which configuration was deemed most successful?
Curiously, Burt doesn't say, apart from that the mixed arrangement in general was unsatisfactory.
Seeing the convert template used in some places but not others; should be consistent (ie, armour section: "The armoured deck was 2 in of mild steel, apart from the central portion of the hull, where it was reduced to 1 in (25 mm)..")
Each measurement is converted on first use and not thereafter - the 2" one is converted in the previous paragraph
Might seem clear, but perhaps worth adding a note for the ships' naming scheme or why it was decided to name them in this fashion.
Added a bit on this.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Seven images all tagged PD as appropriate.
Other:
On Hold Nothing major, just holding for some clarifications.
Thanks again Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated! With all this done, I think I've got what I need. Going to Pass the GAN now. Well done. —Ed!(talk) 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The photo showing Australian soldiers touring the ship in 1919 asserts that the gun in an open mount on the upper deck is a 6" weapon. I would argue that the gun in question is actually a 3" 12-pounder; the BL 6" Mk VII was a much bigger gun.--Death Bredon (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That can't be the case, though, as the photo was taken in 1919, by which time Commonwealth had all of her 12-pounders removed. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it possibly set up as a Saluting Gun? Some references I've seen say 3 or 6 pdr were typically used in the role.
it doesn't look like one of the 3" Anti-Aircraft Mounts
(note: the 12 pdr anti-torpedo and 3" Anti-aircraft are both 76.2mm bore. A 6" would be roughly 100pdr range. A 6" L/45 would be over 23 ft long, the L/50 being over 25 ft long. Those Men around the gun would be around 6 ft tall.)
The Photo may be dated wrong.2603:7080:CB3F:5032:816:5444:176B:C420 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Measuring from the photograph, the calibre at the muzzle of the TWO open-mount guns on the upper deck appears to be about 1/2 the width of the heads of the people on the upper deck (and further back from the muzzle) and around 2/5 to 1/3 of the width of the heads of the people on the lower deck (and at or closer than the muzzle). The width of the head is around 15-16 cm or c. 6-6.3", which would make the calibre of the guns around 3" (76mm), give or take .5 inches. In no case are they 6" guns; I have fired 152mm M. 1892 Canet coastal guns (comparable to the BL 6" MK VII) in my time and they were massively larger than the guns in the photo, the barrel and breech alone weighing over 7 tons with a barrel length of 6.86 m or c. 22.5'. The guns in the picture look to me like QF 12-pdr 12 cwt or 18 cwt types. If you enlarge the photograph of King Edward VII's forward 9.2" gun you can see the 12-pdrs on the upper deck. Death Bredon (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to write in the incipit that the New Zealand was renamed Zealandia, because the relative statement is difficult to detect after one has noted the name change; the table should report both names.
The heavy modernization of two vessels in 1918 is split in three different places and it is not easy to be aware of all the changes that require reading all the three parts.
The presence of 305-234-152 guns for fighting against battleships caused the nickname "artillery petticoat markets", the poor stability the nickname "jolting eight" - but I have no more access to the book where I read this (in the library of another town). pietro. 151.29.45.128 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)