# Talk:Royal Sovereign-class battleship

Though I'm not in a position to reference, it was my understanding was that during the pre-dreadnought era 6inch QF guns (and the like) were intended to play a major part in the line of battle, wrecking the upperworks of other battleships, & the propusion lighter guns (12, 6, 4 or 3 pounders) were intented to see off TBs. 
These (pre-dreanought) 6" guns grew larger, ultimately into the 9.2" on the Lord Nelsons or 10" guns on IJN Satsuma, in order to accomodate increased battle ranges & extensive armour arrangements, until the logical conclusion of a uniform heavy battery was reached in 1906. The extant non-primary arament (in the case of dreadnought 12 pounders - 3"/76mm) then grew in size again up through 4" and finally to 6" to counter the torpedo armed fast/light threat which had evolved from the the diminutive & frail TBs of the late-19thC into larger, more robust destroyers. This is to say that the 6" (or 5" or 150mm etc) pre-dreadnought guns & the similar calibre guns on the later generation of dreadnoughts were not born of the same purpose; rather the former gun & its purpose "died out," while the later was the progeny of the lighter (sub-4") anti-TB guns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 

If you are a die-hard supporter of Lord Fisher, then that is how you would shoe-horn the facts into supporting the arguments he put forward, without admitting that the secondary armament on Fisher's Dreadnought was a mistake.
But all the German so-called dreadnoughts had a 15cm (5.9") secondary armament, which was intended for use against both capital ships, cruisers and torpedo vessels.
In World War II, one of Fisher's ships, the Renown engaged the German's two latest battleships, and like the so-called pre-dreadnoughts, the Renown used both her main armament and her 4.5" secondary armament against them.  In fact, the hit that knocked out the Gneisenau's A turret was from one of the 4.5's.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly all navies did not write off the secondary gun as utterly superseded as the RN did; nor was the distinction in use clear cut - any vessel has "soft parts" (e.g. turret optics...) & the splinters/splash from a larger shell might deal with light craft - if a tube can be brought to bear it won't be left unused.   
However the drive that the primary purpose of 6"QFs was there contribution in line engagements remains valid, especially when the subject vessels were designed & the range of engagement & speed/range of torpedoes then is considered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.183.203 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Royal Sovereign-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ykraps (talk · contribs) 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments coming soon.--Ykraps (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
A comprehensively detailed article that flows well and is easy to read.  Nicely illustrated throughout with appropriate images. Not much to say about this really, but here goes...

"...several were mobilised for service with the Flying Squadron in 1896 when tensions with the German Empire were high following the Jameson Raid in South Africa".  - This part of the lead is not mentioned in the main article. My preference would be to simply repeat the sentence in the Operational history section but if you don't want to do that, you need to add a citation in the lead.
Sigh, should have already been in the main body.
"...of which the eight ships of the Royal Sovereign class were the centrepiece".  - Hyphen between Sovereign and class.
Nope, Royal Sovereign is not a compound adjective since it's a name.
I thought the style was to hyphenate irrespective but as I'm able to find that conversation, okay.
"...a larger metacentric height (the vertical distance between the metacenter and the centre of gravity below it)" - Shouldn't that be metacentre, given that the rest of the article appears to be in Br Eng?
Indeed.
"White had purposely selected a high GM to minimise rolling..."  - I think those unfamiliar with the term are going to be confused here. I would normally suggest having the abbreviation in brackets after the first mention of metacentric height but I can see how this would be messy. You could either link GM or not  use the abbreviation (it is never mentioned again). Or perhaps you have a suggestion?
I think that spelling it out again is the best choice.
"Four of the guns were situated on the main deck and were only usable in calm weather".  - Do we know why?
Clarified.
"Sixteen QF 6-pounder 2.2 in (57 mm) guns of an unknown type..." - More of a question really, as I don't see what can be done either way but does the source not say what type or does source say, "...of an unknown type"?
No, it merely states that they had 6-pounder guns, without specifying the manufacturer, and the RN used guns from two different companies at this time.
Link casemate to Casemate#Single casemates (1889 onwards)
Link Flying Squadron (1896)
Linked in the lede.
I like to link things on the first mention in the main body even if they are already linked in the lead; in case one is read and not the other. The MOS [[1]] says this is optional and I'm guessing you are in the opposite camp on this. I am wondering therefore, whether; links to Revenge and Empress of India (in modifications), Ottoman Empire, Crete, blockship, and accomodation ship (in Operational history) are necessary. Again, MOS is suitably vague here.
You're right, I don't link in the main body if it's linked in the lede, unless it's a very long article and the link's somewhere near the end.
Link Chatham Dockyard
I think that's about it. Look forward to hearing your comments. --Ykraps (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. I think that I've dealt with all of your comments; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)