So, I’ve been reading a lot of posts on the forum about nominations being reject and whether or not people should appeal their rejections.
Personally, I’ve changed up the way in which I construct my nominations.
I’ve realized this….
You are not the one reviewing the nomination. You are the one submitting it.
That means your job is to craft the nomination for the majority of reviewers who are going to see it, especially reviewers in that local area.
You have to stop and really think about it from their point of view.
You may know exactly what you’re looking at. You may know why it matters. You may know the history, the context, or the local importance. But the reviewer is sitting there going through a stack of nominations, some good, some bad, some obvious, and some confusing.
Your nomination needs to do the work for them.
That means the description and supporting information should clearly explain what the object is, why it is relevant, and why it meets criteria. Reviewers should not have to leave the review screen and do independent research just to understand what you are nominating. (Well, @Glawhantojar is going to do his own personal research anyway!)
Let’s not forget about the picture! Especially now that you can nominate through the web and add multiple pics.
A lot of good nominations struggle because the submitter didn’t paint the picture. They assumed the reviewer would “get it.” But reviewers can only judge what is in front of them.
Be organized. Be focused. Be clear.
Tell the reviewer what they are looking at, why it matters, and how it fits the eligibility criteria.
At the end of the day, you are not just submitting a Wayspot, you are making the case for it.