“Dear Amanda,
Everyone is free to resubmit their submission for another reviewer to review if they felt the first reviewer added personal opinions to their review.
Think of it like this: Anybody, even a person with zero knowledge or someone who hates this podcast, should be able to read (and cite) third-party reliable sources and be able to piece together the cane article. If not, then the submission is either biased with opinions, own knowledge and feeling or it lacks third-party sources to back up all their claim (or omit some to just show one site of a subject).
In this case I can see a lot of biased ( and ‘wheasel’) words and phrasings such as ‘hit’, and a lot of fluffy promotional text such as ‘ears and hearts of the listeners’. This is not unbiased encyclopedic content with NPOC (no point of view).
And the only third-party source used is to urban dictionary, which isn’t reliable. Please read the second paragraph above in my comment.
From that source I (who know zero of this subject) am not able to create an article by myself about this subject.
We have over hundreds of policies and guidelines, and over hundreds of artyicle submissions a day (from new and unregistered users). So, we apply a hard standard to them. If you have found a similarly written article, that just means it haven’t been deleted yet, not that it should be replicated.
If no reliable third-party sources that discuss this subject in-depth, then it fails our general notability criteria. Try and find news articles, journals etc. If non are found, then it is too early for an article. It is not a review of the subject it self, it is on the article as written, and if it is neutral, properly cited etc.”
