Centro di formazione professionale accreditato che offre corsi di specializzazione e aggiornamento. L’accademia rappresenta un importante punto di riferimento per l’istruzione continua nel territorio, promuovendo la cultura del lavoro e lo sviluppo delle competenze attraverso una vasta gamma di percorsi formativi certificati.
Posizione
Via Fratelli Colabona, 45, 00045 Genzano di Roma RM, Italia
L’istituto si trova al piano terra di un edificio polifunzionale ed è dotato di un ingresso dedicato con pieno accesso pedonale sicuro tramite marciapiede. È inoltre presente una rampa per garantire l’accessibilità a tutti. Non si tratta di una scuola primaria o secondaria (K-12), bensì di un centro di formazione per adulti e professionisti, rispettando pienamente i criteri di idoneità di Niantic per i luoghi di istruzione e socializzazione. visibile qui: Google Maps
Fix the orientation of the main photo, as this could put off some people,. Provide links in the supporting text to support your claims. Perhaps you could also list on or two of the courses that are provided, as your description has space to be longer.
That bit is unnecessary. We understand that it has pedestrian access. And having an accessibilty ramp doesn’t impact its eligibility. Try not to give more information than reviewers need.
Instead, talk about what kind of training adukts receive here and how it will enrich their lives.
I disagree with this. The supporting text has plenty of room for this narrative. Since pedestrian access is a key element of eligibility, I often address it in the supporting text. It is surprising how often Public Footpath markers were being rejected for being not accessible to pedestrians, so I try and reduce the chances of such idiocy.
It’s a building. Do reviewers think people use transporters to get inside? I stand by my statement that it’s redundant to say it has pedestrian access.
It happens. I suspect that the photo is key to getting some reviewers to even look at the submission and that once you have lost a reviewer, they will then only look for which rejection reason to use.
With anything that is borderline (and being rejected once means this is borderline), it’s worth making sure all easy reason for reviewers to dislike something are removed, so mild photo orientation problems need to be fixed.
It depends on how close the sign is to the entrance. You want the main photo to grab the reviewer and tell them what the wayspot is, so if the sign would end up too small and the entrance only looks like a random entrance to a generic building, then stick with the sign.
Building entrances are something where the sign is often better than the entrance. #signfarer
This rejection reason seems to indicate that reviewers selected “Generic Business.” What can you say to convince them that this is not a generic business, but a great place to exercise, explore, and/or be social?
In regards to the supplemental IMO the accessibility should not be required and I would concentrate on what the place offers first but if there is still space I don’t see mentioning the accessibility as a negative.
My concern about mentioning stuff that is not necessary in the supporting is reviewer fatigue. If reviewers have made it to the supporting section without having made up their minds, I want them to quickly see my convincing statements as to how this meets criteria. I don’t want them to have to wade through moot points in order to see facts which may convince them.
The supporting photo should show the pedestrian access, so this should not need to be addressed, but IF the nomination has previously been rejected for lack of pedestrian access, then I will, even when obvious.
