Opinions on improving this nominatoin?
Title: Dubiner Apartment House | Main photo | Supporting photo | Location
Rejection reasons: The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant, Nomination title or description contains a URL or HTML markup, The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm.
Now, the URL/HTML markup, was probably because I included a link to the Wikipedia article on this building - in the supporting info, obviously, and not in the description or in the title.
My question is, how would you propose I improve this for resubmitting? I think it's obviously deserving of a waypoint - it's historically noteworthy and architecturally unique, there's plenty of information on this building on the web (mostly in Hebrew, but here's an article on it in English here).
Problem is, if reviewers are gonna reject it for putting links in the supporting information, I can't see how I can prove the nomination's worthiness of an approval.
What do you think?
I personally think this structure is a solid Point of Interest.
Submiter is allowed to put links into supporting information, because that's what this section made for : to provide additional infos regarding certain PoI, to assist reviewer on decision making.
Try appealing this nomination before you resubmit, there's a chance they revoke the rejection.
It should pass on the grounds of unique architecture, but being an apartment complex it may take a few attempts.
The URL/Markup reason, assuming it was strictly put in the supporting information, was down to sloppy reviewing. The other two are the more accurate reasons; make sure to mention that this is not a single-family dwelling.
there is no place to appeal a rejection - you have to resubmit - but i do think this is worth a wayspot
i would absolutely reject if you copied and pasted from wikipedia into the description and i noticed - plagiarism if nothing else
the description should include the architect name and the importance of this design. the name and/or description should include the word "Apartment" so reviewers know this is neither a private residence nor a business. definitely include links in the supporting info. also mention that you are nominating this for the architecture in the supporting info section (but don't lecture folks that architecture is acceptable)
the supporting photo is good to show access, but could you get a photo more like the one in the link you provided for the main? that angle really shows how unique this architecture is.
It's a worthy architectural design nomination. But the photo you took from the street definitely looks similar to what we would commonly see as a single private residence in the hills of Los Angeles, CA. Like the above mentioned, try to take the photo on the other side like you presented at the website link. Be sure to mention the architect's name and architectural style or term in the description.
Thank you all for your insights.
@Legacy4N00b-PGO - as said above, it's impossible to appeal a rejection - if it were possible I'd have done it immediately. But I understand why Niantic aren't allowing rejection appeals.
@Skywalkered-PGO - I was hoping it being an apartment complex wouldn't affect reviewers, on the grounds that there's another building with unique architecture (from the same team of architects as well) literally across the street from this building. But seems like I was too optimistic. I will mention it's not a single-family property as you suggested.
And to prove that the link wasn't in the description - it's all in Hebrew, but you can still clearly see that the link is in the supporting info section:
@cyndiepooh-ING - very good point, but I didn't copy-paste from Wikipedia. I paraphrased and only included the information I deemed most important (the two names of the building, the teams of architects, the person the building was named after, and that it's considered one of the most beautiful buildings in the country). It's in Hebrew, but if you like, you can compare my description from the photo above and the article (it's a stub so it's not too much work comparing)
As you can see, I did title the nomination "Dubiner Apartment Building" (which is how it was named in the official website of one of the architects) so it's definitely clear that it's not private property - although I honestly don't know if it really helps. I think too many reviewers just see any housing property as PRP.
I did write in the supporting info that it's an architecturally important building - no lecturing, will be careful not to lecture in the next submission either.
As for the photo - the photo in the article is from several decades ago, when the area was much less developed. I've walked around the building, the best angle I could find is the one I used - the rest is hidden by the nearby buildings and trees. So it's kind of hard to show how unique the building from a single photo, but I will try to see what I can do when I resubmit.
Thought I'd provide an update on this: I've resubmitted this nomination. This time I've managed to get a much better photo of the unique structure. In the description I've detailed the architecture style, the architects, who the building is named after, and how it's considered one of the most unique residential buildings in the country. In the supporting information, I've provided a link to its Wikipedia article.
It just got rejected. The reasons this time: The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Photo of the nomination appears to be of a person or group of people instead of a valid object.
Excuse me if you have - I did skim - but have you tried clarifying in the supporting info that the 40m rule is only for single family residences and multifamily residences are valid waypoints? I was confused before I started browsing the forum about this and assumed all residential buildings fell under the 40m ruling.
I have. There's often confusion about this in my community too. On the other hand, it seems people don't like it when Niantic's guidelines are mentioned in the supporting info, or when there's "too much text" in the supporting info... making nominations like this seem nearly impossible to get accepted.
Well sho-ot. D: I'm going to guess this is one of those nominations that is going to depend more on the right lot of reviewers rather than the information you're including.
I'm afraid so, yeah. Seems like I'll have to keep resubmitting it. It's a bummer, but certainly not the first time I've had to do that.