I’m posting this here because I’m completely out of appeals and I’m genuinely confused by this rejection and I’m not sure if this is a good nomination.. I’d like to get the community’s opinion on this.
My nomination for a “Stadium Canopy” (Mái Vòm Sân Bóng) was rejected for being “Temporary” and having a “Blurry Photo”.
This seems completely unreasonable to me:
“Temporary”: This is just flat-out wrong. It’s clearly a permanent structure with a fixed roof, concrete/brick stands, and metal railings. It was built to last, not a canvas tent.
“Blurry Photo”: The photo is perfectly clear. The details are sharp, and you can see the whole structure. It’s definitely not blurry.
In My Opinion, This nomination should have been an easy approval. It’s a textbook example of a ‘great place to be social,’ where people gather together to watch sports.
What do you guys think? Am I missing something, or was this just a bad call from the reviewers? **Is there any way this nomination could possibly be improved?, Thanks
The first rejection reason is Permanent or distinct, which mean the object is not distinct or not unique. It is the common rejection reason when a submission is not fit for 1 of 3 main criteria.
How can you explain Stadium Canopy a great place to be socializing?.
This isn’t just a simple roof; this is the Grandstand for the sports field, which is the primary gathering point for any sporting venue."
How it qualifies as ‘A great place to be social’:
Core Purpose: Its fundamental function is to allow large groups of people (spectators, parents, friends) to gather at the same time in one location.
Shared Experience: People sit together to watch a shared event (a football match, a track meet, a practice session).
Direct Interaction: While watching, they talk, comment, cheer, and share emotions with each other. It creates a strong sense of community and a collective experience.
In other words, the field is for ‘playing,’ but the grandstand is where people ‘socialize,’ connect, and support the players. This is the very definition of a ‘great place to be social’ according to Wayfarer criteria
You could argue that the Stadium matches “Social” criteria.
The roof is just infrastructure to protect from the Rain / Sun.
IMO: The Rejection is correct but you could try the “Stadium” itself if it’s not already a waypoint. If it is already a waypoint I would say the roof is part of the “Stadium” and therefore duplicate.
I’m having a hard time giving an opinion on the photo considering the text appears to be stretched and this possibly means the original photo is not like we’re seeing either?..
Checking IITC there doesn’t seem to have been a wayspot for the field back in May 2025, but if one has been approved since that could be one of the reasons. If not, as discussed above I’d suggest nominating the field itself - empirically, it’s been hard to make an argument for individual features of a single field to be eligible.
The photo reason isn’t it’s blurry. It’s that it’s low quality, which may include blurriness. Personally i think the exposure is bad. Too much bright sky making the thing you want highlighted too dark. You should be able to adjust that before or after taking the photo. You might also try taking more pictures from different angles and look at them after to see which one makes the canopy look the best.
