User talk:BlueRoses13

About

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

This user assumes good faith.

1RR

This user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war.

<ref>

This user recognizes the importance of citing sources.

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

This user is proud to be a Wikipedian.

This user thinks you can learn a lot by editing an Encyclopedia.

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:

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)[reply]

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 Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ Gregg, Aarom (16 June 2017). "Linda Rabbitt teaches leadership for women. She doesn't sugarcoat things". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 July 2024.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference wapo2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] Gregg, Aarom (16 June 2017). "Linda Rabbitt teaches leadership for women. She doesn't sugarcoat things". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 July 2024.

[wapo2-2] Cite error: The named reference wapo2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

User talk:BlueRoses13

Your submission at Articles for creation: Linda Rabbitt (July 6)

Navigation menu

Search