University building rejected for "private residence"/others, could use some help!

ViciousMockery-PGOViciousMockery-PGO Posts: 2
edited November 2021 in Nomination Improvement

Hello friends!

I recently had the pleasure of getting my first wayspot rejected, and I know almost certain that it should be approved. I can only assume that either I very much misunderstood the guidelines or perhaps I misconstrued the status of my spot.

As my description states, this historical building houses a collection of original William Shakespeare documents and hosts discussions, lectures, and research. I assume it was rejected because I said it isn't open to the public, but it's a university building and surrounded by other buildings not open to the public on the same block that have been accepted. Should I just take that line out of the supporting info (or even say that nobody lives here)? It feels at times like reviewing wayspots can involve a bit too much looking for keywords and a bit too little examining individual circumstances.

Looking at the few documents and posts I could find about private buildings and such, it appears that meeting places (like this one) should be accepted, but I may be misinterpreting that. It appears someone also designated this a "sensitive" location, which I am also not quite understanding.

In terms of the photo, would a picture capturing the whole building be better? I was trying to be relatively artsy but I guess there could be room for improvement there. If necessary, I could also add some URLs to the supporting info.

Thanks a lot on any help you could provide me with to improve my submission!


  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭✭✭

    okay this would look like just a house to anyone flying through reviews, but i would have accepted this.

    my biggest suggestion is to include a link in the supporting information section that reviewers who are carefully considering the nomination to easily verify that this is what you say it is - i quickly googled several, including a wikipedia article

    i don't understand the low quality photo rejection, but maybe reviewers thought it was cropped too close to show a house. maybe back up a little bit from the other side to take the nomination photo and include just a bit more of the house with the entry door. i do think that is a good focal point unless you can get a shot of the whole house from across the street - but it doesn't look like you can.

    i would resubmit basically the same description. maybe rearrange to put the purpose first: the elizabethan club is home to one of the largest private collections of original folios by shakespeare and his contemporaries. it is open to members, guests, and researchers. (unless you really want those names in there, i would leave them out, and be sure you have documentation linked to prove that if you do - the wikipedia article says founded by the first guy, not the professor.)

    i would leave out the "while not open to the public" phrase in the supporting.

    the biggest hurdle is going to be the fact that it looks like just a house. too bad there is no sign. if you ever catch it when they have a sign up for an event, that might be a good time to take a photo. google maps has it labelled as the club, and a google search on the address brings up the club, so you have that in your favor.

    i can't tell you how many good nominations i have had to submit multiple times to get people to actually look at the information. good luck with the resubmit!

    (i think i got to everything you asked lol)

  • Thanks for the detailed info. Much appreciated!

Sign In or Register to comment.