Why my article rejected for network sites? Help requested

1. 90

   LHwritingsposted 2 years ago

   I'm utterly baffled that my article https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Hand … ater-Party has been rejected by network sites (Owlcation and Spinditty) that have published several of my previous articles. First I submitted it to Owlcation but received a response that I needed to address "a few issues" and then re-submit the article. The issues (see below, with my comments) are totally puzzling:
   
   ==
   Links:
   All links in the article should go to high-quality sites, directly support the content, and be useful to readers. Self-promotional links (i.e., links to your business, blog, or website) are not permitted on Network Sites. These links can be included on your profile page. Lastly, a link's anchor text should give readers a clear idea of where the link goes.
   
   Link Capsules are for showcasing a group of relevant and high-quality links to your readers, not for promoting other articles you may have written on Network Sites. Link Capsules should rarely contain more than three or four links. [COMMENT: I have not included any links to myself; the only link capsules include a link to a YouTube video and another to a CD  of the Water Music on Amazon]
   
   Layout:
   Text should be broken up into multiple capsules with clear headers. Think about ways you can condense the information in the article so that it is more readable and scannable (especially on mobile). Bulleted and numbered lists and Table Capsules are great ways to summarize information in a more digestible format. [COMMENT: Article does have multiple capsules and headers; the one text list is already bulleted (the other is a graphic)]
   
   Photos:
   Every article on Network Sites should have at least one high-quality photo. If there are multiple photos in the article, they should all be relevant to the content and visually appealing. Original photos—without watermarks—are always preferable to stock photos. If you must use creative commons photos, please choose them carefully and tastefully. [COMMENT: The graphics seem as high in quality as others that have been acceptable in my other articles]
   
   Site Mismatch:
   Each Network Site has a unique focus. Unfortunately, the content of your article is not a good fit for the site in question. Consider reviewing a list of our Network Sites to see what topics and article types fit best on each site. [COMMENT: Why it's a mismatch for Owlcation is puzzling; it seems consistent with the site's editorial policy and similar in approach to my previous article on the history of fireworks, which they accepted]
   
   Article Length:
   We look for thorough, detailed articles to publish on our Network Sites. If your article is less than 800 words long, consider adding more relevant, high-quality content to fully explore the topic [COMMENT: Article is >4900 words]
   ==
   
   Because of the "site mismatch" issue, I submitted the article to Spinditty, which has published several of my classical music articles. I received an almost identical rejection; the only difference was that the list of issues omitted the "site mismatch" issue.
   
   I would greatly appreciate any comments, criticism, observations, or other feedback that could give me some guidance as to what actually might need to be changed to possibly make the article more acceptable to a network site (particularly Spinditty).
   
   Thanks —Lyndon

   replyreport
   1. 95

      AliciaCposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      This must be very frustrating after all your effort. I took a quick look at the article. You might want to look at the WordPress link in the “Reference Sources” section. The referenced article is written entirely in bold print and has no references of its own. I didn’t check the entire article, but some of it is copied from Wikipedia.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         LHwritingsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks Alicia, and thanks to the others that have offered suggestions. I'll make some revisions, but I'm not hopeful that this article will ever be accepted, and that may remain a mystery. My wife wonders whether HubPages is actually using some kind of bot to screen articles.
         
         —Lyndon

         replyreport
   2. 65

      OldRosesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      My guess would be that HubPages would prefer that you use properly licensed photos instead of captures from YouTube.  I'm not sure what the licensing situation is with YouTube.  You may unknowingly be violating copyrights.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      greenmindposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's the Amazon capsule. Even though it's totally on-point, I would cut it and resubmit.
      That said, articles re-submitted for Network sites almost always languish for a long time before anything happens.

      replyreport