I’m looking for some clarification: Do included sources even get checked? I got a spot rejected and the appeal also rejected, but from reading the appeal I feel like it was barely looked at.
In my additional information I included a source to a government website about heritage objects and locations, clearly explaining the significance and history of the point.
But it got rejected because it’s a ‘natural feature’ clearly it’s a man-made object, it’s carved concrete… They also ask to include a sign to tell about the significance of the object, but the source covers that (Roepsteen | Inventaris Onroerend Erfgoed). Not everything has an infosign. Thanks in advance!
3 Likes
Hello and welcome,
You should have included some information about the historic/cultural value in the description, not just the supporting info. It also seems as though this was rejected by ML, the AI system, not reviewers, as the community can’t reject something for being a natural object. Your rejection email would have said “our team” instead of “our community” if ML rejected it. While the reason given by the appeals team isn’t right, I do agree with their decision, due to the poor description.
I would recommend resubmitting this with a better description. You may also want to submit it in the language you speak or is used the most in this area, since it isn’t in an English speaking country, and there is no restrictions on what language has to be used to submit Wayspots. Being the website you provided is in Dutch, that may be the best language to use for the locale.
For some reason, many Wayfarers in Belgium believe it’s best to submit in English, but this is not true, and has led to rejections because the titles/descriptions have been poor, or they were translated poorly.
1 Like
So today a funny thing happened, I got a “community” acceptance around 24h after submission, for a biking trail where typically the community hates that kind of thing
So I’m wondering if it was Emily after all?
Im wondering with this nomination (which I like by the way) maybe the main image could sell it a bit better? Get in a bit closer, centre it with a squarer view so more step and less grass, which might help the ML send it for review? Hard to say but worth a try.
Not really the thread to discuss, especially since the OP appealed the nomination, and it was also rejected via appeal.
Hello!
Thank you for explaining it in detail. I will try to do it again following your tips.
Sincerely