It's way past my bedtime, so I haven't looked through them all.
IMO, the first one is fine, I love the colours. I'm assuming the orginal is bigger, and if so the wording on the notice might be semi-readable. In that case you'd either have to remove the writing, leaving a big white notice board unless you can clone it out altogether or submit it as editorial. I can't work out their policy on signs, but I once had a reject on a mark which they thought was copyrighted and when I went back to look at the original, it was literally just a random mark, tiny in the whole pic.
The first two photos of the boy don't seem to be critically sharp, especially in the eyes. The third pic seems to be sharper, but his cheek is almost totally burned out, which I'm assuming iS still won't accept (but who knows nowadays?)
I'm sure others will chip in with their opinions.