I submitted the two nominations below and both were automatically rejected, and I don’t understand why. They do meet the required criteria. Could someone clarify this for me ?
They are two historical traces of the village, located on trails where you can walk safely. Many walkers and runners pass by there.
For some reason your screenshots are really blurry so I can’t read the text.
Is there any way you can increase the resolution or copy the text here so its possible to read? Then we can help 
I’ll move this to nomination help.
Village creation stone
Description
“This stone was placed when the village was created, but the inscriptions have faded over time.”
Additional information
“This stone, located on the dirt paths in the middle of the village, is a remnant from its creation. At the time, it described the founding of the village, but today the inscriptions have disappeared with time.”
Old sewer pipes
Description
“Old sewer pipes placed there by the workers of the time during the village’s construction. Back then, they were used as a play area for young children.”
Additional information
“These old sewer pieces were placed here 50 years ago during the village’s construction. They were meant to serve as a play area for children. Today, they are a relic from the early days of the village, and children still enjoy passing through them, even if only the oldest residents remember their history and the reason they are there.”
Just out of interest… is there any information on the Interweb from any official (Government agency for example) that backs up your claims on these 2 nominations? If so, did you include them in your supporting info?
The old sewer pipes don’t seem to meet any criteria.
The stone could meet criteria but it seems like ML had a hard time recognizing that as a stone. To me, it looks like an unpainted utility box, which would not meet criteria. You may just have to appeal that and explain it to the Wayfarer team directly.
The playground has been discussed here: Appeal Rejected - Pipe Playground
I am also finding these screenshots too blurry to see well, but the photos used here do not show that this is a playground. I can’t tell if you added more information to prove this is a playground. A cluster showing the group of pipes as the main photo might be more successful 
Your last description of the sewer pipes said they are currently a playground, but here you’ve said thry used to be a playground and now sound abandoned? It was them being a playground that made it sound eligible before. Now I’m not so sure.
It’s ‘abandoned’ in the sense that these are the only pieces that survived the other play elements disappeared over time. Still, they are still used: children often play with them. In summer, when the area is a bit more maintained, it remains a nice spot to stop and play for a while.
I think it remains a part of the village’s history
Unfortunately, I can’t find any records about the stone. I can only rely on what my grandparents, who were there at the time, told me.
Oh cool old picture! Is that picture available online? I would definitely link to it in your supporting
It sounds like its still a playground. So write your nomination as one for a current playground. I hope it works 
Naming something after sewer pipes is likely to result in a rejection, so I would suggest giving it a more creative name. The village does look interesting, and remember you can use anything you can find as a citation - for example this web page has a bigger version of the photo you posted and some background details: 40 ans village du Beauchamp
As the submitter, it is your job to explain the reasons that these are interesting and provide citations to prove the fact. I think that more research might well help you find out about that stone.
That old picture with the pipes and benches looks very useful.
With the new option to submit via the web you can attach up to 5 supplementary photos. As well as more conventional ones to help with the current situation you could have this one and then provide the context for using it in the supplementary info ( and a possible link).
Note on the web submission form there is a small character limit in supplementary info. But once submitted you can put on hold and edit to provide fuller information.
I will say that the old photo adds confusion for me. That photo appears to show a paved concrete path with those concrete pipes physically attached to the ground. But the new photo shows concrete pipes sitting on grass. I have trouble understanding what happened to the paved path the pipes used to be attached to. Did someone come through and break up the concrete? If so, how/why were the pipes not impacted?
If the photo is not for this particular playground, you shouldnt use it. Its possible there are many similar playground in the padt
The photos match. Over time, trees have grown up but also the paved path has been covered with grass across most of its width. If you look at the newer image with the street light, you can see the grass is very short and stubby, consistent with it having spread across paved ground. It doesn’t take grass long to crawl across paving and drag a thin layer of soil with it. Also, the bank behind the pipes is consistent in the photos.
To help the comparison I would try and take a photo from roughly the same spot so that it helps the match to be made.
@oblan Use the web submission form, as this allows up to 5 supporting photos. Use that old black and white image, with at least one new image taken from the same position and angle as suggested by @elijustrying.
Thank you everyone for your feedback and advice.
