PJ and street, I think, gets too heavy of a consideration because of their value as historical record which lends a higher visibility in the public consciousness.
A perfect example of this is Levitt from that first list. The value of her photos is almost purely documentarian. She had zero influence on her contemporaries, and by the time her works were discovered/published, plenty of others were already doing what she did, so she doesn't really have any influence now, but, we're not shooting in the time she was.
Your list feels more politically motivated than artistically. I'm sure someone will run along and say "ALL ART IS POLITICS" which is an idiotic thing to claim, but there's a level of unrefinedness to some of your selections that puts the intent above the execution. To be clear, I'm not saying the images must be pretty, but that to get the label of great, I would expect an intersection of high level technical execution with impactful work.
Like Goldin. Her work is valuable documenting LGBT during the AIDS crisis, something few others were doing. Does this rarity of subjects convey in and of itself artistic value?
Then what is Sherman doing that John Waters hasn't already blown out of the water? This is probably one of my big blind spots, but I can't stand simple subversions of tradition just to be subversive.
Tavakolian is another who is of interest simply because she's a rare POV and not that her work carries any new or interesting uses of the medium.