| Article: George McClellan
|
Score: 11 Chuckwagons
|
| Nominated by:
|
—John Lydon 22:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
|
For: 11
|
- For. —John Lydon 22:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
- For. I made some minor edits to this but it seems as good as any other candidate here for featuring.
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:31, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- For. Hey I wrote that article and it goes like this. SirIsaac 16:05, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 For. —Sir Socky   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:09, 5 June 2010'- For, though I wish the lapses into second person had been written around. But you have my vote so you have no incentive to change it. --monika 23:07, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Weakish For. A solid article on a less-than-notable subject, but it could still use some improvements here and there. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 13:26, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
- For Obligatory As per Guildy. --Sog1970 13:20, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
- For. SURE!--Funnybony
   00:15, Jun 15
- Weak For. Good jokes, but sloppy in tone. I almost abstained. ~
     11:43, Jun 15, 2010
- FirIsaac. Also, Guildy, seeing you call Mr. McClellan "less-than-notable" almost makes me want to hate you again. Then I remembered how fruitless that was.
 TKFU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  01:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- For. Yeah, OK. --UU - natter
 11:48, Jun 17
|
Against: 0
|
No against votes
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
Always check the feature queue first.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article.
Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.
For. 
21:38, June 18, 2010 (UTC)