Advice Needed on Rejected Nomination
Baltaar81-PGO
Posts: 10 ✭✭
Looking for some advise on my nomination and whether it's worth trying again. This was my first nomination so I went with something I knew decent amount of the history for, within walking distance due to the current real world restrictions and was in keeping with the type of waypoints that we have in the area.
My confusion comes from the rejection reason given:-
Is the photo the issue or is due to the fact this is a residential area, and the site is now residential use? I will admit I rushed the photo as I was a bit time restricted. If it is the former, then I'll try a renominating. If it is the later then that’s fine in terms of resubmitting (I'll just leave it) but in terms of both reviewing of nominations and nominating in the future, how this is any different from a plaque on or a mailbox (of which there are several in the area) directly in front of a residential property?
If the rejection reason said photo is the problem or this is residential property alone if would be a bit more straightforward, I'm just not sure what I can take away from this rejection to improve on submissions and reviewing in the future.
Best Answer
-
FrealafGB-PGO
Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭
Based on your nomination I don't really know what it is, it looks like a house with a big hedge, and you say it used to be something else, but you don't say what it is now?
My recommendations for improvement are made assuming this is not a private single family house now - if that's what it is then it's ineligible whatever it's history :
- get a better picture that isn't half hedge
- get the support picture to show the building too
-tell me what it is now, to set my mind at rest that it's not a private house - don't just say converted for other use
- if it is flats now, that's fine - that doesn't make it ineligible
Answers
The photo definitely is not good, it shows just a building, which has nothing special to it. Plus, if it is still in residential use by people, it will not go through at all.
Seems its was a bit of both then, if it was just the photo then I'd probably try again, although the historical context of building was the point of its nomination so I'm not sure I can make it look that much more interesting.
The residential issue makes sense (not wanting groups of people hanging around outside etc) but there are plenty waypoints around town that are right outside private residences like this which would have the same effect (probably even worse than in this case to be honest as the pavement outside is much smaller and more likely to cause disruption). Should I be harsher when reviewing similar places like this myself?
The thing is that this point should be placed on the building itself of course, not outside on the pavement, as the object is the building. The other pins are placed outside the building area, which do not encourage people to actually go on the property, in comparison to this pin, which is (or should be) on the building
I definitely put the pin marker as close to the buidling as I could (it does not appear on the POGO in-world map so was tough to judge), that certainly makes it a little clearer. It's the fact that the building has an area of private land between the street and itself. If it was actually directly on the street then it may have been eligable?
Honestly just looks like a residence to me. I tried googling The Hearth Northamptonshire and didn't come up with anything. I think you would need to demonstrate the historical significance and also prove somehow that it wasn't being used as a residence. Otherwise, I don't see this wayspot being approved anytime soon.
Also, I can't make_out the subject in your supporting photo. A supporting photo is useless if you do not include the nomination in it. Might not be super important for this one, but I'd make a habit of it if I was nominating.
Also no. If the building is just meant to be used for residence currently, it doesn't really meet any criteria.
Ah I see it was originally called The Open Hearth until a few years ago, there are a fair few articles in local newspapers (including the websites) about its eventual closure but only when you google the old name. I used the current name to be accurate but (other issues with the nomination aside) I should have probably included the old name to aid with research.
Noted, I had noticed this when reviewing nominations myself. I was trying to show that there was plenty of pedestrian access but should have included the suggested building in the photo. Will do this for future nominations (not if this one ofcourse).
No residential at all, will definitely not make that mistake again. Confused as to how I've seen plaques etc on residential building get stops in the past but I'd definatly apply that to both nominations and reviews from now on.
Based on your nomination I don't really know what it is, it looks like a house with a big hedge, and you say it used to be something else, but you don't say what it is now?
My recommendations for improvement are made assuming this is not a private single family house now - if that's what it is then it's ineligible whatever it's history :
- get a better picture that isn't half hedge
- get the support picture to show the building too
-tell me what it is now, to set my mind at rest that it's not a private house - don't just say converted for other use
- if it is flats now, that's fine - that doesn't make it ineligible
Ah ok, it is flats (if it was a house I would not have attempted it to be fair) but it's gated and therefore access to the grounds is rescricted, so I'm thinking it may not be worth another attempt. I was too focused on giving the building history that I ran out of space in the additional info text and went with what would fit. Reading it back now it does seem to be trying to hide something 😅 Now I feel like a bit of an idiot.
The building is now Flats, though it is gated, not sure if that matters?
Re-reading the additional information now, I can see how it seems a bit vague on current use, as said in a reply to someone else I was trying to keep the historical info while fitting it in the space provided.
Yeah flats are fine. Private residential rejections are for houses for 1 family to live in, not apartment blocks or converted big houses with multiple families in. I would mention it is now a block of flats. Gated doesn't matter - even if it's only accessible by residents and visitors, because those people have pedestrian access
I don't know how likely it is to be approved, you'll have to really sell it. If its a bit of a local landmark, try not upgrading it, since locals might recognise it, but upgraded items tend to go out to a much wider radius of reviewers who might live hundreds of miles away and therefore won't know it.
Thanks, that is good to know, will nominate it again at some point if that is the case. Will try and get a wider view of the building as the main photo and a bit of a side view to help clarify its status as flats/apartments as well as show it from a different angle (and revise the text obviously). If it is rejected again, I will just leave it at that, using this one as a learning exercise really.