Do you think an observatory should be a portal?
At my university there is an observatory. I'll already send it to OPR two times, both were rejected. Do you think is a valid portal? Should I send it again?
www. photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=501941121537
2
Comments
Link doesnt work, sends me to the main page.
An observatory sounds like a good portal to me, especially with it being on campus
Yes.
You are correct, here is the fixed link (you have to remove the space between i.i)
https://i .imgur.com/1vioYQF.jpg
I'd say that an observatory would be acceptable.
If the observatory meets all the criteria for security and "public" access, I think it's a good candidate.
Try to improve the photo and make sure it is clearly visible from google map with a photosphere. ;)
I would normally approve this type of candidate since it seems to be a visual landmark if you were looking at it from afar. However there are a few ways to improve your chances regarding this candidate.
First, find out if there's any history behind said observatory. Usually there is a large portion of donation money from a family or individual that the observatory gets named after. This information needs to be in the description of the candidate since it gives historical context. If you don't find this information it is still important to include the function of the observatory and what program its associated with along with it's clear distinction that the observatory is a landmark that is visually recognizable from far away for the students.
Two, submit this in Prime. One picture you can take of the actual observatory making a really good image of it while the supporting picture should be how you can see it from the ground level from afar proving its landmark reasoning as a candidate.
When I submit a candidate, I try to think of all the reasons why my submission would get rejected if I saw it in OPR and then try to provide all of the rejection options in some sort of way in my candidate in review. Submitting it multiple times isn't going to make a big difference for the most part if you don't make it something you would 4 or 5 star in review.
Where are these criterias? The guidelines state that it must be open to the public in some capacity.
From AMAs it's evident that as long as someone has access without trespassing, it is a valid portal. Think of it as an opportunity to make a new friend
Correct, it only needs to have "safe pedestrian access" -- for anyone who is authorized to visit. If it is behind a gate is locked most of the time, for example, that does not preclude it from being a worthy portal candidate.
I think this is a good candidate. Have the submission photos always been from the roof? If so, that might freak some reviewers out. I'd suggest getting to ground level and taking the photo from there, looking up at them and make sure the location pin is spot-on.
I would rate it 5 stars. :)
Is there a sign or a plaque for it as well? Maybe you can take a pic of the plaque as your second photo. also, put as much detail into the description as you can dig up.
Would rate 5/5
Educational value, landmark, kinda like Fire lookout tower in steroids 😅
@UNCOVER Here: http://prntscr.com/o5abm7 I guess you forgot...? 😃
After viewing the photo it looks like it may be on a roof that could possibly be inaccessible, as others said before, I would take a photo from ground level outside of the building looking up at the observatories.
If you really like the photo from the rooftop, submit it from ground level, wait until it gets approved, then add the picture from the roof and have your friends up-vote it so it becomes the first picture.
It's a few more steps, but if people are denying it because it looks unaccessible because it's taken from a roof, that could solve your problem and get a cool picture as well!
Rooftop. definitely reason for rejection.