The above nomination was submitted during the review challenge and I felt it was a nonsensical reason, given that these signs were all recently accepted along the relevant stretches of riverbank:
I don’t know how explorers can be expected to respond to a rejection when it’s not being made clear what the issues are?! Does anyone have any experience of how to best deal with this?
My first guess would be that some folks considered the last rejection a duplicate of the previously accepted ones - only a guess, but I am getting really confused as I scroll through the photos in your post trying to keep which is which straight.
Several signs along a legitimate Abingdon walking path have been approved. Reviewers need only glance at the map to see the path and the approved spots during review to see that the titles and descriptions are reasonable and the information signs are accurately located.
Given that the Rye Farm West and central information signs are clearly acceptable, distinct, accurate, and verifiable, why did the reviewers reject the sign for the Hales Meadow West mooring, with no reasoning other than that reviewers had failed to reach a consensus?
It doesn’t appear that there were actual grammatical or spelling errors, either.
i was simply guessing at what that rejection reason might have meant on the latest one. agree with you that it (the nomination) seems reasonable to me and had no further suggestions for improvement. maybe you can help
back in the day we could recognize a “partial dupe” rejection from a particular rejection reason given that didn’t exactly match up to anything reviewers could choose to reject for. i am wondering if this “no concensus” rejection is the new “partial dupe” indicator.
