Something about quality issues

There is nothing wrong with fantasy images, I have submitted some myself, but you need to consider how many people might be willing to pay to download an image of a castle next to a rhino with a waterfall cascading off it, not many I suspect, and whether the few cents it may or may not earn you is woth the time and trouble of producing it and then editing it to meet Adobe's strict requirements.

This is my most popular fantasy related image which took about eight hours of editing to get it right.

The other day, my image was rejected due to quality issues. It would have been fine, but it took them almost six months to make that decision. Are there quality issues? Perhaps. No image is perfect, so you can always find something to nitpick. The only strange thing is that it took so long.

By @Alexander_Yurgelenas5010

It took that long because it was stuck in the moderation queue. Regretfully, it appears that the moderation queue has a persistent bug that causes assets to become stuck for an excessive amount of time.

The actual checking was as fast as with every asset. My guess is that the standard time an asset gets checked by the moderator is under 10 seconds. Why? Because I nearly always see defects on the assets in a very short time when they get posted here. Writing about the defects is taking time. Moderators do even not need to detect all defects in a picture. The first defect they will see will get your asset rejected. That's making asset checking very effective and fast. 

Sometimes it happens.  Assets get stuck in limbo for a long time. 

If after 3 months it's not reviewed, delete the asset, rename the file and resubmit.  

Hope that helps. 

There is a bug, and there have been cases where some contributors have been waiting 8 months or longer. One work-around is to delete any assets that have been under the review tab for longer than three or four months, then resubmit them with new file names, thus getting them treated as new files altogether. If you DON'T change the file name, as I've learned, they will usually just end up at the bottom of the queue again. That said, I just had an asset reviewed that had been under review for most likely a period of nearly 8 or 9 months. It was rejected for quality issues. I didn't bother resubmitting it, since it was similar to other assets that were being rejected for similar content (unfairly, in my opinion, but that's another story). At least with quality rejections, I'm given some recourse to examine an asset more closely before resubmitting. But I digress. Apparently, even older assets will EVENTUALLY be reviewed without having to resubmit if one is patient enough.