Refused for technical issues

I had many photos refused too, but decide to forget my personal preferences and follow the hints/tips on the Adobe Stock link:
https://helpx.adobe.com/br/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html?set=stock--fundamentals--adobe-stock-contributor
I have improved and learned a lot, applying the knowledge in the images I have offered/upload.
Your photo is very beautiful, but after read the tips (see the link), some technical questions may be out.
Best regards.

In addition to what is already said, the horizon is not level and you must remove your signature. Which, by the way, is well hidden.

Street:

Over processed, blown out reflection on the water (arrow), artefacts (cloud and a little everywhere), no details, no contrasts and I would also guess out of focus:

Big Sur: High noise level, missing contrast, missing details, over processing, chromatic aberration (arrows) and different other artefacts:

4642: Over processed, false colours due to the use of a filter effect, washed out colours (painting effect), halos around hard edges.

In addition, there are some identifiers that make an IP refusal also probable.

Generally: submit naturally looking pictures, nicely processed and without artefacts and photographic errors. All of your pictures are too much of everything, and the initial quality of the pictures was probably poor.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

In the first, noise, blur, blown highlights, underexposed shadows and a leaning horizon. In the second, over-saturated and halos around the tree trunks which probably indicated over-processing.