My reaction to the rejected draft https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&oldid=842614385 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D

My reaction to the rejected draft https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&oldid=842614385 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Stric... is that it did not make clear Strickland's notability. I'm fairly passionate about disproportional representation of women scientists. (E.g., Leavitt, Burnell.) In the (more distant) past I've initiated or added to several WP articles about women scientists. Sometimes editors may be too quick to 'pull the trigger' on stuff ... there are lots of 'unnotable personages' attempts. IMO, in this case (haven't scrutinized it closely) it looks like they tried to be fair in encouraging more 'proof', according to the established standards. Side note: WP is, if anything, overly protective of orthodox scientific viewpoints. Maybe that colored the thinking here, who knows. But it's up to the submitting editor to make notability clear.