Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen

Self nom. Third time's the charm? I've nominated this before here and here. I've got a photo--taken from his campaign site. I've got an annotated bibliography. I've noted, using parenthetical cites, material from articles. General information, such as his background and his district, aren't specifically cited because they are drawn from general resources of first instance such as the Congressional Directory. (Those books are, however, in the bibliography.) Some material from the Congressional Record and Thomas is cited via web-links. PedanticallySpeaking 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Footnotes have been added throughout the article. PedanticallySpeaking 18:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's quite a references section. Might I suggest (given what Wikipedia:Inline Citation says about Inline Citation being mandatory for FA's) that you convert it to inline citation? Ex: STATEMENT^[1], and in References 1. ^ REFERENCE INFO. Staxringold 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. If inline citations are added, I will support, otherwise, looks very good. RyanGerbil10 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply of PS. Okay, I'm converting references to footnotes. But I'm out of time today so I'll pick it up later. Is what I'm doing so far what people are looking for? PedanticallySpeaking 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. Yep. Basically use each source to confirm something in the article, and if it doesn't confirm anything it's not really a source (or if it's a general information site it's an external link). Staxringold 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. I'm done with my notes. I've added some material too. I hope those conditional votes will switch to unconditional support ;) PedanticallySpeaking 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I support. My concerns are taken care of. Sorry about the delay, I am setting up a new computer at my house and things are kind of hectic at the moment. RyanGerbil10 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although a nicer image would be nice, and that annotated bib is pretty long for none of them to confirm anything in the article (and therefore belong as a ref). Staxringold 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was taught in school that if one used footnotes, there should still be a list of references in alphabetical order. I have asked for his official House photograph from the U.S. House Historical Office but I am awaiting a reply. This photo is from his campaign site. Thanks for your support vote. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support The short paragraphs and sections should be made longer or worked into the rest of the article. Specifically, "namesake", "Challenging Schmidt in 2006", "Following the primary, McEwen campaigned", "Returns to private life" (that's a poor title too, IMO), "Following the primary, the Dayton Daily News criticized", "Strickland said, "I ran against Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan" and "Miller decides to run" (also bad title). Tuf-Kat 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I merged a couple of the sections and paragraph per your comment, but the "returns to private life" section really ought to stand alone. Thank you for your support vote. PedanticallySpeaking 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - right degree of detail, references look good, very well written. Rossrs 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your vote. PedanticallySpeaking 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; a perusal of this massive article reveals good work. -Litefantastic 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very well done. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]