Nominators’ responsibility to justify meeting basic criteria

To what extent do you hold nominators responsible for writing a solid justification for their waystop?

For example, someone nominates a playground that is not a duplicate. We all know that these are pretty widely accepted. However, nominator makes no attempt to justify its inclusion based on meeting one or more of the three basic criteria. Sometimes, there are just a few words such as “great spot,” or “need more stops in this area.”

Essentially, even though nominator has not done their job in writing a great or even marginal nomination, do I look the other way and recommend approval because I know it meets one or more of the criteria? Or do I recommend rejection because the nomination is poor?

Thanks for your insights.

Comments

Sign In or Register to comment.