Confused on how to improve based on rejection reasons

Hi. Looking for feedback. I submitted the two rejected and screenshot nominations in Madrid, Spain. Both were upgraded. Voth were failed with the exact same reasons. These were:



The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm, The real-world location of the nomination appears to obstruct the driveway of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers, The real-world location of the nomination appears to have explicit or inappropriate activity.



I am feeling frustrated. Neither are on private residential property or a farm. One is a bookstore located in a multiuse building where the ground floor is all shops. The other is an office building.


Neither blocks any sort of emergency services, nor are they located anywhere near such services. There are none in the building. There are no ambulance bays. There are no lanes for these.


Neither has explicit services in them. They do not sell guns, porn or women. There are no nude photos in the pictures.


I also got dinged on the bookstore as not existing despite being clearly visible on Google Street View. No need for a Google 360 view because both are just so clearly visible on street view where the marker actually is.


How can i improve these nominations based on the feedback? :(




Comments

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1. Is a generic business.
    2. is just a mundane modern building with no architecturally interesting features.
  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 696 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Based on the information you provided it'd seem(!) like wrong rejection reasons were applied. But as the reasons are about location...

    If you want outsider's perspective we'd need a Google Maps link (and screenshots of support photo + text) to properly help.

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    Si esas son las razones que has recibido, la revisión ha sido un desastre, al menos en lo que a selección de razones se refiere.

    La primera puede interpretarse como un negocio genérico, por lo que si verdaderamente es la mayor librería especializada en el mundo del motor sería bueno dar soporte a esa afirmación con algún artículo de la prensa o alguna otra fuente que la mencione.

    Cómo habrás visto en la respuesta anterior, es difícil convencer a los revisores, que mayormente no son versados en arquitectura, de los méritos de algún edificio moderno. Al margen de eso, sería importante que la propuesta incluya por lo menos el nombre del arquitecto y el año de construcción. Nuevamente, un enlace a algún artículo sobre el edificio puede ayudar.

  • purplepopple-INGpurplepopple-ING Posts: 189 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    @TheFarix-PGO : no. The reviewers said something different. The reasons you cited are not what the reviewers cited. How is a generic business any of the reasons cited?


    @Kellerrys-ING

    Libro Motor

    C. de Edgar Neville, 8, 28020 Madrid

    915 54 81 95


    That is the bookstore. It is the largest motor bookstore in Europe, and is not a franchise.


    Edificio Cubik

    C. de Edgar Neville, 13, 28020 Madrid


    That is the Edificio Cubik. Willing to concede 50/50 on architectural uniqueness making it a great place to explore... but that wasn't the reason it was rejected. I would understand a rejection reasons related to that. But nope.

  • purplepopple-INGpurplepopple-ING Posts: 189 ✭✭✭

    @Lechu1730-PGO

    Esta es la tercera vez que presento esta propuesta. La primera y segunda añadí enlaces a Marca y a otra revista española, pero no sirvió de nada. Sigo recibiendo "residencia privada" o "no existe" como razones para el rechazo. ¿Cómo puedo mejorar la propuesta cuando las razones para rechazar no se ajustan a la realidad? ¿Crees que añadir el nombre del arquitecto puede ayudar cuando me dicen que el edificio ni siquiera existe? :(

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    Thank you. With a guick glance the locations are ok and easy to check. Not much to say, perhaps make a polite(!) note such as "Office building, pin by the entrance. Easy to check from street view."

    On the other hand I don't find it surprising that those were rejected. In my experience

    -uniqueness of specialty shops is hard to prove and require a lot of luck with the kind of reviewers you get

    -architechture nominations are a hit and miss, the newer the building the harder the case

    Suggestions for retry (edit; oops, partly same as Lechu1730)

    -Use the Edificio Cubik letters in your main photo. The streetview makes the building seem much more impressive.

    -Find out the architecht if you haven't already. Especially if it's designed by someone famous.

    -Libro Motor has a nice logo, include it in the main photo.

    Good luck.

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    La revisión en tu área parece rota. Yo hubiera esperado encontrar entre las razones "La propuesta no cumple con los criterios de aceptación", lo cual es esperable para una propuesta bien evaluada que sin embargo no se encuentra lo suficientemente interesante.

    Intenta agregar la mayor cantidad de información posible y describir claramente por qué crees que las propuestas cumplen los criterios de elegibilidad y aceptación. Esto quizás te ayude:

    https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/9890/how-to-submit-things-that-get-accepted

  • purplepopple-INGpurplepopple-ING Posts: 189 ✭✭✭

    @Lechu1730-PGO and @Kellerrys-ING

    Gracias a ambos. Tengo mucha frustración con las razones del rechazo. sus comentarios son muy útiles. Deseo que las personas que clasifican las pokeparadas den mejores razones para rechazar. esto es muy frustrante, incluso cuando estoy feliz de reconocer que estas nominaciones son 50/50.


    Thank you both very much. I feel really frustrated by this process as a nominator because the feedback from reviewers when rejecting is so poor and out of sync with reality. Even acknowledging that I am 50/50 on these meetings the criteria, the rejection reasons are just so frustrating. :(

    I do a lot of reviewing, and i always try to make sure the rejection reasons has some useful basis. Generic business can be rejected with other rejection reason or 1* on cultural or historic value. :(


    Anyway, thanks again. Will try to resubmit integrating your feedback.

Sign In or Register to comment.