User talk:BlueRoses13

Your submission at Articles for creation: Linda Rabbitt (July 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Linda Rabbitt and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Linda_Rabbitt Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SafariScribe&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Linda_Rabbitt reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @SafariScribe,
 * Thanks so much for your speedy review. I appreciate that, especially when the backlog is so full. May I ask you a couple of questions?
 * Question #1: The footnotes seem to clearly establish notability. If nothing else, consider these three profiles in the Washington Post. Then add this article in the New York Times and these two profiles in the Washington Business Journal. Finally, check out this (paywalled) case study from Harvard Business School.
 * These sources are reliable, secondary, and independent, and their coverage of Rabbitt is significant. Please help me understand what else is needed, or please give her notability another look.
 * Question #2: With respect to tone, I’ve searched through the draft and I’m having trouble identifying examples of peacockery or puffery; the tone, to me, appears to be formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. There are no laundry lists; each claim is appropriately sourced and consistent with other pages in what a Wikipedia reader would want to know. Additionally, sections are labeled in a way that adheres to Wikipedia style.
 * The only thing I can see as potentially problematic are the following sentences:
 * She has been cited as one of the only female CEOs in the construction industry in Greater Washington, while rand* has been cited as the region's largest woman-owned construction contractor.
 * She's served on the boards of what, according to The Washington Post, are "generally regarded as the area's two most influential business groups": the Federal City Council and the Greater Washington Board of Trade.
 * @SafariScribe, I'm eager to address these issues, so I need a little more feedback from your perspective. A problem cannot be fixed without specifics.
 * I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much for your continued help.
 * Sincerely,
 * BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)