== My thoughts == 

  asked me to check out this page to get my thoughts on it's status and potential future FA status. I promised a "mini-peer review" so here are some of my thoughts: 

 *There are many sections throughout the article regarding his family. I realize that it moves chronlogically throughout the Senator's life, but instead of placing the sections convolutedly throughout, why not combine them into a general "Marriage and family" section? Instead of "Naval training, early assignments, first marriage, and children", it could simply become "Naval training and early assignments" getting rid of the longer title (the same goes for "Senate liaison and second marriage", "US Congressman and more children", etc.) while moving the paragraphs having to do with his first marriage and children into the Marriage and family section. It should probably go below the "Naval traning and early assignments" section. 

 *Consistent citation formats, including: 
 **for book sources; either cite them all individually in the text with page numbers, or place them all in a bottom "References" section and write "Smith, Anna (1989), p.0" in the footnote. 
 **italicize newspaper names; Something that I learned from my friend Wasted Time R. Either use the "publisher" parameter in the  template and add two apostrophe marks at the beginning and end, or simply use cite news' "work" parameter, which italicizes it for you. For works by other sources that have been republished, you will have to use both parameters. 
 **wikilinks; either link all the publisher names, link them only the first time they appear, or don't link any at all; authors with wiki articles may be wikilinked. 
 **no blogs! I removed one, and have seen a few others remaining on the page. Blog sources are not always verifiable. 

 *Citations needed: 
 **In the entire "Keating five" section 
 **The mention of the "Gang of 14" needs a citation as well 
 **McCain's attempts at immigration reform 
 **"Cultural and political image" section 
 **The "Military" section in "Awards, honors, and decorations" 

 *Are there any free photos of the 2000 presidential campaign? If so, it would be nice to include one. 

 *In the "Second Bush term" section, the quote "Although Bush had threatened to veto the bill if McCain's language was included," is strange. McCain speaks English, as we all know, and unless it's profanity or something else being reffered to, I'm not sure what "language" the sentence is talking about. 

 *Above the "Cultural and political image" section, there is one big list of ratings different organizations have given McCain over the years. Those aren't his political positions; it's a list that goes on far too long and does not communicate as much as should be communicated (particularly under the "special interests groups" section). While I think one or two of the views expressed by the special interest groups and the political organizations should be kept, this section needs to describe McCain's Republican stance (moderate, conservative, or liberal) and views on the pressing issues of today (War on Terror, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, climate change, gay rights, illegal immigration, economy including taxes, healthcare, abortion, stem-cell research, etc.). I realize that much of those have been brought up in the article, but they should be made reference to here again because that is the title of the section. 

 *Get rid of the see also section and the template because it is the same one as that below the infobox. 

 *I've made my opposition to elecoral histories sections clear, but I am in no position to demand that this one be removed. I do, however, recommend that the format of the content stay consistent; two elections are horozontally listed with a scrollbar and colors, while one is vertically listed (I would prefer them all vertically listed). 

 All in all, I think this article has great potential and definitely FA worthy when the concerns I've raised are taken care of. Your biggest challenge, however (and boy do I know about FA challenges), is the stablity issue because he is currently running for office; I think that can be argued against by the fact that Barack Obama's article is featured and he too is running for president. I hope the editors have found this insight useful, and please if you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thanks so much and good luck,