User talk:BlueRoses13

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:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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 Articles for creation help desk, on the 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)

Hello, BlueRoses13! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! 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,^[1] while rand* has been cited as the region's largest woman-owned construction contractor.^[2]
• 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.^[2]

@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)

Your recent message on a reviewer's talk page made me think to write to you. You were delaying what you hoped to do because you awaited a response. Please, instead, double check your own work, and, as soon as confident, resubmit for review. Then, while waiting, continue to improve, but not necessarily expand, the draft you have just submitted.

I don't mean wording tweaks. I mean strive for better references, not more references. Replace less useful references with more useful ones for that fact and consider redeploying the reference no longer used for another fact.

You shoudl always start with research into references, never with typing a single word of a draft or article. This essay has that process in it, you may find it useful. There are many such essays. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@BlueRoses13, Tim Trent's encouragement is top notch, and he is one of the best in giving simple advice Judging from your draft recently, I have a general view that you're a good writer although writing well doesn't mean your draft can't be declined. However when decline comes, you have a voice and can express it in so many places like the reviewer's talk page, AFC help desk, e.t.c. If you have correctly incorporated any feedback given to you, also seek again, maybe from editors you think will be willing to help you out before resubmitting. Even if you're not yet sure to resubmit, ping the editor who has promised/desired to give you feedback because when you don't, they may not remember. Congrats! Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe Thanks so much for your encouragement and kind words. You've been great throughout this whole process, and I appreciate deeply your patience with me and expert guidance. For one thing, I learned that I need to make it clearer why the subject of a proposed page is "notable": It's not only about media coverage; the text also needs to be explicit as to why the person is significant/influential. That's a nuance my first draft was lacking, and thanks to your help, I think this point is now much clearer. Thanks also for asking the specific questions you did in WikiProject Articles for creation; that allowed me to focus my efforts better. I’m excited to work together in the future. Sincerely, BlueRoses13 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thanks so much for taking the time to provide this guidance! That's most kind of you. I'm very way of proceeding without waiting for the given editor to respond, since you all are volunteers and I don't want to pressure or rush you. But I totally get your point: Instead of asking, "Is this ok?" once I'm confident it is, then I should notify the editor, then go ahead and resubmit. I look forward to reading your essay in depth. Thanks for all you do to maintain Wikipedia’s integrity! Sincerely, BlueRoses13 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Paradoxically you cannot rush us! This is because there is no deadline. Your personal one will differ from my personal one, and it just doesn't matter.

Why?

Because Wikipedia is not a news site, and we never have to be first to publish something. Indeed we must never be first, because we may only record what is said in reliable secondary sources. Someone else has to 'say' it first. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Jesse Buss, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

grapesurgeon (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)