User talk:Carynmckechnie

Welcome!
Hello, Carynmckechnie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Suzan DelBene
I'd like to explain the changes I made to your edit in Suzan DelBene &mdash; you will soon find that you have to "let go" of your carefully crafted prose in Wikipedia, as anything you write is immediately subject to editing like this. I also fixed some spellings (some people spend their time on Wikipedia just attending to spelling and grammar).

First, good job on adding the amount of text that you did, with the appropriate seriousness, and on the inclusion of correct footnotes; I always find that the hardest part. Verifiability is key to Wikipedia's acceptability as a serious encyclopedia. Another thing you have done is help determine the structure of the article, even if the text itself is edited mercilessly, an article's layout tends to persist. However, I suspect there may be a standard template for living politicians that articles are expected to follow; I haven't checked. If so, you may find the article gets reshaped eventually.

One key Wikipedia tenet is the Neutral Point of View. This is particularly tricky in political articles, because almost everyone (including VoteSmart) has an agenda, and value-laden words like "refused" and "courage" are obvious red flags. That's why I removed some of the language. Your list of issues is heavily weighted to public statements that she made during the campaign, which causes a certain imbalance, but that may well get edited over time.

It's also better to use primary sources rather than secondary ones. For example, it's not true that her voting record cannot be found on the Internet. She was sworn in on November 13, and has a recorded vote in every roll call since then. They are right there on house.gov: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/ROLL_600.asp. If you are interested in studying politics and using online resources, you should become familiar with the .gov domain (House, Senate, White House, the entire Administration, and LOC, including the invaluable Thomas resource).

The same comment about primary sources applies to a candidate's positions. The authoritative source in this case is at http://delbene.house.gov/issues. It is of course acceptable to use other sources, for example when other events tend to conflict or illuminate the stated position.

Finally, I did some hyperlinking. Wikipedia articles are expected to link to other articles, especially when there is an expectation that a reader might want to find out more. Most of the terms you used turned out to be easy to turn into a link. Striking the right balance between too little and too much is an art that has to be learned!

One technical editing tip: it looks as if you tried to create paragraph breaks, but without success. You need to insert a complete blank line, like in an email message. People sometimes create their copy in something like Microsoft Word (which is more convenient for longer text, and has the spellcheck) but it has a different rule, and what looks like a blank link between paragraphs really isn't. Another clue is that you used curly-quotes, which are automatically inserted by Word, but it is a long-standing Wikipedia standard to use 'straight' quotes like "this". I haven't changed them though.

Anyway, welcome again, keep editing, and good luck with your studies. David Brooks (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)