… I am wondering, why would this edit be rejected? Don’t have an appeal available for another couple of weeks, but not sure if it’s worth appealing. It’s a minor edit, but just wondering if there is a rationale behind the rejection.
1 Like
I would say it’s because your description is only different in style and naming the place it’s located at. If I were asked to review it on a informational content level, I would have thought about rejecting it as well since it’s basically the same
That’s a fair explanation. Was hoping to make the description more presentable, but not a deal breaker.
Maybe consider a couple of things.
Use of word “modern”. Could be replaced with the year of applicable standard met.
“has been subsequently been”. The second “been” could be removed.
Like you say, I wouldn’t be fussed about it either. I am surprised that it was not accepted though. Certainly nothing obvious wrong that I can see.
Fair point about the 2nd been. Regarding when the sewage was replaced, I didn’t dig into when it was replaced, but I am sure I could have found the relevant info if I had put in the effort. The edit was more a cosmetic edit more than anything else. The Wayspot was something I had submitted a while back, so nothing quite like fixing my own errors.
2 Likes
All modern houses are required to have their own sewage vent - UK Soil Vent Pipe Building Regulations: A Summary | Drainfast Ltd - this theoretically renders stinkpipes obsolete but the one at the bottom of my road does seem a bit whiffy now and then. Theoretically, modern sewage systems don’t need them.
To make a description more interesting, look for a maker’s name at the bottom (e.g. W. E. Farrer is a common one), note the condition of the base, see if the pipe is original and check to see if there’s a crown on the top.
Personally I like your edit, I feel that it adds information without taking anything away. As others have said, there are a couple of errors carried over but they exist in the original anyway so those are not a good reason to deny your edit.
I have had a few recently where ML has rejected some obvious improvements and corrections, I feel your frustration but it’s really not worth wasting an appeal on, it’s their database that suffers.