Talk:USS Benham (DD-49)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Pass
 * One note though, "US" does not need fullstops, from what I've seen of its use on Wikipedia. I would recommend going through the article and changing all "U.S." to "US" for consistency with other articles.
 * Common usage in the U.S. is to include the periods, even when other initialisms do not use them. This is the recommended practice by the Chicago Manual of Style. It's a style issue, to me akin to the American/Commonwealth/International flavors (or flavours) of English. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm wondering about the ship's WWI service between July 1917 and June 1918, there doesn't seem to be any specific mention of this time. Did the ship not encounter another U-boat in that time? Did it never escort another patrol? A note of what it did during this time, even if it isn't exciting, would cover this.
 * Well, the article says that the ship continued patrols "until June 1918". I'd love to include more detail about the wartime activities. But, regrettably, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships doesn't have anything beyond what's there. The fact that the ship almost sank isn't even in DANFS, for goodness sake. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Not Yet
 * The more specific details in the World War I and Postwar sections should be cited, including dates, specific numbers and places.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold Just a few points to correct and this article is good! - Ed! (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review, and my apologies for not seeing this (or your message on my talk page) sooner. My responses are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your responses satisfy my concerns with the article, so it now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -— Ed! (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)