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.
PedanticallySpeaking18:24, 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.
Staxringold19:58, 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?
PedanticallySpeaking21:04, 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).
Staxringold02:06, 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.
RyanGerbil1003:29, 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).
Staxringold19:00, 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.
PedanticallySpeaking18:13, 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-Kat02:37, 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.
PedanticallySpeaking18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)reply