No, I didn't mean editing while on hold. I understand you can't do that.

Figure I'd update    
 
Since my original post asking my "Unprofessional" question, the card has been approved and should be for sale on my site as I type this.  The only changes I made to the image was to retool the lines that made up the heart and during that process I also "tweaked" the thickness of the words.  The changes took 3 minutes and do not reallyyyyyy  alter the look of the card one way or the other.  
 
As a long time humor artist/writer I try to work in various styles so I can appeal to different buyers. Sometimes this is done by drawing the same characters but by simply changing the medium (The Wedding congrats card was drawn digitally).  I can create a different look by illustrating in watercolor, acrylic, colored pencil or ink styles.  Other times I work a softer less cartoony look and sometimes I try out my juvenile style if the copy demands it.  Keeping each image different keeps me entertained as an artist and pushes me out of any "artist rut" I fall into.  Does this "weaken" my overall Scott Nelson brand though?   Not sure.  A topic for another day.
 
As I said, I'm new to GCU and am learning the ins and outs as I move along. To date my cards were either approved as is or after updating the category (something that continues to confuse me).  With the Wedding congrats card though the reply  to my card came back as Unprofessional.  That was that.  No recourse.  Just one word.  Unprofessional!!  Should I forget about the card and move on?  I think not.  Scratching my head as to why it was booted lead me to my original question and now that is has been approved with a three minute tweak that hardly changed the card I'm actually left with more questions than answers.  Was the original "Shakey line" that matched the characters below so unappealing that it should received the Unprofessional boot?  And would a 3 minute tweak really be all it needed to turn it from unprofessional to a welcomed addition to the GCU store?   A lot of time goes into the creation of cards and truth be told I don't have time to spend pleading out my case if it's rejected.  Is that what they want?  
 
Yet I have not forgotten that this is a P.O.D. site and outside of my time I have not invested any of my own money to warrant this site in the first place.  I am in agreement that if thems the rules-- thems the rules.   Doesn't mean I have to like it but GCU doesn't owe me anything.
 
So with that said, I'm wondering if there has been TALK about GCU implementing a paid for service in which cards are submitted and for a FEE they place them in the best category, use the best key words and tweak the art (boarders perhaps) for you?   This might be the extra money they need to help keep them in the black and fix the % artists receive.
 
Thanks to everyone for your helpful words and thank you to GCU for allowing me to to ask my question in the first place.  
 

Hi Scott,
 I love everything you do ..... and I always will... You have talent.

Quote from marcia_216173 on Aug 28^th, 2013, 8:54pm:

 
Hmm . . . I'm trying to remember just how I went about it. I think I had originally requested it to be Fast Tracked because it was first in a series. Because a Fast Tracked card will be reviewed within days and not weeks, I could easily submit a new card and not have had wasted six weeks (or twice six weeks) waiting for an approval or decline.
Another way to get input on a declined card is to submit it to the Critique Clinic. You'll get good, solid advice from those in the know.
Good luck!

Quote from Scott_235570 on Aug 26^th, 2013, 7:15am:

Hi Scott,
Thanks for your quick edits and rounding out your experience here.  
 
Yes, the difference is made in the small details.    Your quick fix on the "shakey line" made the difference.
 
A few thoughts ...
1. Recreate - We do not encourage artists to plead their case on declined cards.  A declined card can be recreated and submitted if you like.  If so this is best done after you have a clear understanding what the issue for the decline was so you can edit accordingly.  Be sure to include a Note to Reviewer with the new submission like: based on declined card pid#121212.   We do not allow declined cards to simply be resubmitted in hopes for a different opinion.  This is a waste of time for reviewers and other waiting artists.  
 
2. Reason Details - although it seems like only one word "unprofessional" or "perspective" for example each reason is explained in detail via the link provided to the wiki Submission Guidelines.  We assume that artists use that link to find out more.  Maybe not.  Do artists not refer to the full description of the submission guidelines to understand more?  If I were an artist I'd have this real handy, like taped to my forehead  
http://gcuwiki.com/sg.html
 
3. Terminology - "Unprofessional" it seems to put artists on the defensive, more so than any other reason used.  Years ago we used to "Reject" cards but now "Decline" them.  It's the same thing but if artists would like to suggest a more palatable term that means the same thing we are happy to consider it.  
 
4. We've thrown out a few times the idea of a general decline - No Thank You.  I've heard no feedback on that concept (unless its gone overlooked).
 
5. Paid Service - tell me more.  Do you mean artists paying for their storefronts?

Mindy, how about "UNSUITABLE" instead of unprofessional. I don't think that would be quite as offensive to artists. Many are professionals and that really upsets them. Unsuitable basically would mean it's not right for Greeting Card Universe, not that their card was created badly.

Sherry's comment: "UNSUITABLE" instead of unprofessional. I don't think that would be quite as offensive to artists.  
 
Yes, that is better.
 
I wonder if a card is declined sometimes because the photo won't reproduce well even though it looks good on the screen. This is similar to Lar's remark in another forum concerning his beautiful art which doesn't reproduce well on GCU's equipment.
 
Since GCU hears customer complaints/concerns in addition to our issues, it must factor in that knowledge when accepting or declining a design.
 
And Mindy, please, continue to include team comments instead of a simple decline. It is a great help in the long run.
 
Thank you.