I saw a father and son fishing on the beach in my neighborhood and took this shot.

I recognized that the composition and composition were fine, but it was not select.

What am I missing?　Or is it too much?　Is it because I emphasized the texture of the clouds in the back, even though the subject is the parent and child?　Is it because the high contrast of the boat in the back draws attention?

I have been getting a lot of not select evaluations lately and would like to know what is wrong.

35mm f8 1/125 ISO1600 M11-P Affinity Photo 2

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Or is it not impactful enough?

Significantly cropped and contrast adjusted. How does this compare to the first one?

Maki,

Thank you for sharing the photo. 

I like the theme  of a Father teaching his son about fishing.  In the photo I see two people, but it's not clear that they are Father and son.  The faces aren't fully shown, so there are no  expressions to contribute to the story.  The bright, rectangular object at the bottom left is a distraction. 

The light looks bright and clear, and the waves, clouds, and wind-blown hair suggest a brisk, autumn day.  The fishing gear at the bottom right is a good detail, and the ships catching the light are nice too.  They add to the windy day feeling.

All just my opinion, of course.

As for getting a lot of 'not selected' photos lately - we all know that feeling.  The Curation process seems to have moods, and no one knows exactly how it works.

. . . .  Steven, senior critic

editing suggestions - cropped, objects removed from bottom left, and shadows lightened a little. 

Hello, Maki. 

You have offered us two versions of the one original, so I'll call the original "A" and the secondary offering "B". Now, if you want 1x success, don't listen to me; my record here is terrible. However, that doesn't shut me up! (sorry...) All that follows are, of course, just my views. Here goes...

Composition:

Sorry, with respect, I disagree that the composition is fine - that applies to both versions and, if I curated the image would be a reason for my not passing either. (A) is too cluttered, distracting from the main subject. And that white tackle-box is too temping to look at, pulling us away from your main subject. The occasional ship is unharmful / ok but there are quite a few, giving a chaotic horizon - which, being behind the fance, means I am peering at it, trying to mentally work it out - again, at the expense of the main subject. From these points, you have made some good corrections in (B). However, (B) has its own problems. Most noticably, you have decapitated the subject on the right - that would not make for a good relationship between the two. On a less startling note, the left-side ends at an akward verticle for the fence. I was tempted to offer one of my rare adaptations of your image but you and I are saved from that by Steven's excellent, spot-on adaptation. Look carefully at his version and you'll see (I hope) what I was talking of. (NB I only looked at Steven's verion after my above comments - so I am not rubber-stamping what he suggests; I really think it the best adaptation I could think of, too).

Tone / Constrast: See Steven's. 100% Methinks.

Small Niggle: The upright (Unheld) fishing rod has a (reel?) attachment against the sky at one point - I would remove that because (i) I do not think it contributes and (ii) my eyes keep being drawn to it. But many would disagree. If you aim is reportage street photography it should stay; if art then I would remove it, others might not.

Now, if Steven's version of your very promising original came before me, would I pass it? Yes I would - because the aesthetics are good and the story is there. (I do note Steven's comments about faces but I think the image shows a good-enough relationship anyway.

Cheerio. Good luck.