I wish ML could be more specific, because at the moment it is essentially saying “well, there could be absolutely anything wrong with the nomination”.
I don’t think the issue is with the text, as that is largely the same for each of the nominations. I had some difficulty taking the photos as randoms kept appearing and hovering immediately behind the gates, but essentially I made sure the main photos showed the entirety of the ironwork and made sure that the gates were in the supporting photos.
At first glance ‘East’ and ‘West’ main photos are very similar, but the gates are a bit closer in ‘East’ and maybe that tipped the balance. Therefore, my first thought for the three rejections would be to crop the main photos (or would new new main photos be necessary?) so that the ironwork fills more of the photo.
However, I am open to other ideas if there is something more obvious to fellow wayfarers?
Hi
Quick question have you got some old photos that show these to be original? Or are they listed?
My gut instinct is that they are not Victorian. If they are listed then that should help.
Also although there are different entrances what you are presenting is much the same thing. So a reviewer will just see the same thing repeatedly.
Those look interesting, and I can see that the metalwork reads “CH” on some of them. Definitely try to find a reference to them being there and add it to the supporting text.
Maybe find the best gate and start with tweaking the submission. One with a good contrast between the gate and surroundings may help it stand out for Emily.
They aren’t listed structures. I haven’t found any photos yet, but there is a book published in 2015 commemorating 150 years of the park that might show them or not show them in various photos or may even mention them explicitly. I’ll see if I can find a copy at the library or one of the local independent bookshops.
I have also now emailed the clerk of Christ’s Hospital and they are away until 25th November.
I do know that all the park railings and other metalwork such as a Crimean cannon got removed from the park in WWII. However, this doesn’t mean that the gates weren’t there then as they may have been deemed worthy of retention for control of vehicular and horse-drawn traffic.
I decided to put them through in a batch, because I felt that if one got through, it would then act as a potential duplicate barrier to the rest.
I agree that the two CH ones have better prospects. Perhaps “Christ’s Hospital Monogram” as revised titles and then the description explaining it is installed on a gate as an integral part of the mid-late 19th century Albert Park development, with any specific gate detail I can find.
I also wonder if ‘East’ and ‘West’ have a deliberate ‘H’ shape in them, although with the curly nature of the ironwork that could be a complete coincidence.
These are really rough looking, and the simple design doesn’t read as old to me,
but I did find a pic of one in a pdf of historical ironwork, though the caption about finials sounds like it might refer to the railing beyond. But the photo looks a little old and one of your gates is there.
From the gazetteer of ironwork in abingdon (pdf)
found at
Maybe better pics would help get past the ML and better supporting info would win over human reviewers. I would drop the puffery about the striking two-tone color scheme. It’s too hypey for me to maintain suspension of disbelief. The color scheme looks like some sort of safety striping with a layer of mud and/or rust.
It was this PDF document that got me thinking about the gates. The gates themselves are discussed at pages 24-25 and I clean forgot about the photo at page 9 in the railings section. I saw the same photo in the copy of the 150 year celebration book that I tracked down in the library earlier. It is a non-borrow copy, so I only had time to skim it before they closed and the only other photographic evidence I could see was one at the Park Road / Park Crescent / Conduit Road junction, which looked like an older photo where the gates that are also in that location weren’t present. I didn’t have chance to scour the text for any other references to them.
The part you have highlighted mentions the removal of the railings, which I assume was due to WWII, in which case I can be fairly certain that the photo is at least before WWII. My best guess at the moment, is that they were installed as vehicular traffic started to emerge in the early C20.
I’ve also seen the Abingdon Town Council historic ironwork page.
Thank you for the other advice, which I shall take on board.
I see another thread was opened that seems to be the same as this one:
I’ll respond here, as it’s best to keep topics contained to 1 thread.
While we don’t have many gates like this in the US, I don’t think the use of the words gate/gates is causing the rejection. To me, a gate at a place is meant to keep people out.
I recently reviewed a nomination that someone was trying to pass off as a walking path. However, the main photo and supporting photo showed a locked gate put up by the city utilities department, as this was actually a gas pipeline. It’s possible that some may be walking along the pipeline, but the gates are meant to restrict access and even warn others of the dangers beyond the gate.
So, it’s possible that gate could be causing the rejections, as the nomination I got had no mention of gate/gates, but I’ve also seen entry gates at stadiums and arenas in community review with gate in the title, so they’ve gotten passed ML. It could be more of ML seeing these gates at ineligible locations or unsafe locations.
Hopefully staff can take another look at these rejections, as they are of historical value, and as long as they are at publicly accessible locations, which they all appear to be, they certainly would be some fun things to explore.
Thank you for your reply. I lumped these nominations together, because they are similar designs on vehicular gates in the same area, installed by the same landowner, whereas the other one is an older pedestrian gate in a different part of town and therefore the supporting information is different.
Would staff take a look at ML rejections without an appeal first?
Moving gates of any kind could be hard to get approved, whether gates for vehicles or pedestrians. These gates may not always be in a static position, and it’s possible that ML could also be seeing them as temporary.
I also had a mural in review at an urban farm. Looking closer at Street View, it actually was a mural on a large gate that opens and closes; it’s used by both vehicles and pedestrians to enter. The gate may be open when the business is open, but closes when the business is closed, so it’s not in a static, unmovable position.
It took me awhile to decide how to judge it: place the location pin at the post where the gate hinge is, as part of the mural was on the rest of the fencing, or reject for not being permanent. Being this was awhile ago, I think I moved the pin to the post and marked Permanent/Distinct as IDK.
I do wish ML would give us more info than a nomination not meeting criteria instead of us having to try and guess why it was rejected. Maybe in the future…
