`critical, is open to be challenged and reverted without sources. If the information you submit can be supported by either online references or print journalism, include information about those sources here, on the talk page, and another editor can work them into the article properly. Also, take a look at WP:CS, which helps to explain the process.     ::::That's fine, but the previous version wasn't referenced either, so at least this one is a bit more unbiased and not completely lifted from the subject's own website. I will post links to my sources on this page for an editor to work into the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by      Here is a link to the ``Environmental Scorecard`` put out by the League of Conservation Voters that shows Debicella with the worst rating in the State Senate: http://www.ctlcv.org/Scorecards/2008%20Scorecard.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by      Here is a source for his vote against emergency contraception for rape victims: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12895  —Preceding unsigned comment added by      :Last thought: Frankly, one is dubious about the need to include information about interpretations of a state senator's records and performance at all, unless such actions have proven truly notable (i.e., through coverage in major media). Both praise from favorable political web sites and criticism from assessment organizations will be challengedpartisanship cuts both ways. Safest sources are major reliable news outlets. Otherwise, assessments of job performance, pro and con, are probably not encyclopedic.     ::The League of Conservation Voters is a reputable organizations and Debicella has purported himself to be strong on the environment. I think that's notable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by      Here is a source for his vote against raising the minimum wage: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=20094  —Preceding unsigned comment added by    `