Good day and welcome!
I’ve moved this to the Nomination Support as it pertains to your own submissions and feedback.
Usually, the rejection you mentioned indicates an ML rejection. Checking the email for “our team” should also verify that it is AI rejected.
What initially strikes me with the example above is that the text focuses on the sign itself. Usually, signs may be used as visual placemarkers but the content should pertain to what is being represented. Unless the sign itself can stand on its own as seen at the bottom of this clarification Unique Art
The next issue would be how the sign or conservation area meets at least one of the three eligibility criteria: being a great place for exercise, socialization, or exploration. Granted that it promotes biodiversity but how are humans supposed to interact with the area? Some conservation areas may even be closed for interaction due to disturbances from human activity.
From the given presentation, I don’t see its eligibility and the supporting statement takes away the interest from the conservation area itself and focuses on the trail near it. This conveys to me that the trail is the eligible object here.