In this case, the title and description are not important. This is not my nomination, I am interested in how other reviewers see it.
Main photo:
Additional photo (I only hid the faces)
Geolocation:
Nominations are reviewed holistically. Title, description and supporting information are important.
Hi,
Thanks for blanking out the faces.
As it’s a perfectly good play set I presume your actual question is …..
Is the supplementary acceptable to use, does it create an issue?
( it would help if your questions were clearer 
)
The supplementary looks posed, so I would reject as submitter identifiable as it appears to be a deliberate attempt to link the children to the nomination and hence the nominator.
I would also contact help desk to request removal of this from voting as it is not suitable to be in voting.
There are other possible ways of dealing with this.
If this is in voting now I hope you have taken prompt action.
They are important.
Are you reviewing this?
Is there a specific issue with sharing the actual text since the location has already been shared?
1 Like
Without enough detail, there might be license plate visible in the main photo. I don’t know if the photo lose quality by sending it here but if the nomination does show license plate, then I would reject it.
You’re partly right. The problem is with the photos, not the license plate.
Since I already wrote that in this case it is not important, it should have suggested that the problem is not in the title and description. Try to understand the problem from the available visual information.
Yes. But in this case, they won’t help this nomination, since the nomination’s biggest problem lies in the visual information provided.
Your guess may be reasonable, but it’s also somewhat far-fetched, as the children could have accidentally gotten into the photo, as this is a playground, after all. There are more obvious problems with this nomination. Let’s just say that even if there were no children in the photo for this nomination, it wouldn’t have helped.
If you know of some kind of issue, you can just ask about it instead. Users of this forum can best help with your reviews when they are given all context, not when they are given an “exam question”. If it’s an obvious issue, it sounds like you already know what to do. I don’t think it’s productive to play guessing games - please ask your question straight.
1 Like
May main concern is that this has been reported for removal from the voting stream. Has that happened?
Because this is, in part, an “exam question.” I’m curious to see how carefully other people evaluate the nominations. Unfortunately, the results so far are not very encouraging. If these signs are not noticed, it is obvious that I am putting too much effort into evaluating and should evaluate everything by primary signs.
I submitted a report once, but received a response that there was no abuse. So I submitted it again.
I’m not sure why you would be the final authority on what kind of reviewing is correct or not, but either way this forum is not for exams of its members or for shaming of other people’s nominations - it’s for constructive advice on reviewing and nominating. I don’t think you can establish who would have found what - consider that people will not very much want to engage with a post whose intent is “I know the right answer, but do you?” or “this is terrible”. This is not the kind of atmosphere we want to foster, and hence we’ll be closing this.
If you are looking to educate people and share something they should know I would suggest posting it in earnest with explanations and details - we have multiple educational materials and “hey be mindful of this” posts. This kind of material is more than welcome.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, the ambassadors did not allow me to conduct an interesting task for attention. Therefore I’m answering the question I posed: What do you think about this nomination?
I’ll start from the less obvious to the more obvious.
- Photo proportions. It’s clear from the photo that they have non-standard proportions (not 3x4 or 1x1).
- Suspiciously low quality. The main photo is of suspiciously low quality.
- An incomprehensible black stripe at the top of the additional photo.
All this already makes one doubt whether the photos used in the nomination are real.
Further on come more obvious facts.
- Different position. Different positions of playground elements in the main photo and in the additional one.
- Various configurations. Different playground equipment (one photo has elements, while the other doesn’t, for example, a bench)
- The additional photo shows another building directly behind one, aligned with the first. However, judging by the geolocation, there are no such buildings; they stand perpendicular to each other.
- Different shapes of playground flooring. In each photo, the playing area has a different flooring geometry, and none of them matches the satellite photo.
I think it’s obvious that the nomination was faked using (probably) third-party photos that are completely inconsistent with each other.