Thank you for your response. My comments indeed do not apply to vintage photos. Here are a few random examples where I think stricter screening could be applied (or at least considered) to ensure a consistent level of high quality standards.
1. Lots of distracting clutter (fence, ramp equipment) in the foreground. Although not blocking any part of the a/c, it still takes away the focus of the main subject. Granted, it's the first photo of this particular a/c but I'm wondering if it would've been accepted if there were already a dozen photos in the db.
2. Distracting lightpole on the left side, probably avoidable by taking the photo a second earlier
3. Similar story, lightpole is even more distracting as it is prominently sticking out of the cockpit.
4. Bush/tree in the lower left corner is distracting and avoidable by taking the photo a second later
5. Flat light (bordering backlight). While there may not be any technical flaws, there are numerous photos of this a/c with much better light, making this photo subpar.
6. Distracting lightpole (or something) in the bottom of the photo, probably avoidable
7. Unfavourable angle, no titles whatsoever visible, it's not much more than just a dark belly
8. Similar story, also a lot of empty space
So whereas the margins for the technical/editing aspects are small, the margins for motive/composition/aesthetics are quite large. I get the impression that high quality photography is merely defined as the absence of any technical/editing flaws and I don't know if that is correct. I wonder how the screening team/community sees this.