Posted under General
NoIdea4GoodName said:
Her head looks off center from her neck. I can see why it was flagged for anatomy problems.
Honestly the head is the least of the problems here, the whole body is badly proportioned and structured and the foreshortening on it was overapplied on the arm but not applied on the torso+abdomen for some reason.
I see this artist tends to have glaring anatomy issues in their work, which is a shame, since the style has good potential to me
jxh2154 said:
People have been asking for a thread where feedback on uploads could be obtained. So here it is. I have some reservations about how acrimonious this thread is likely to get, and if it turns into nothing more than a flame-fest, I will lock it.
Rules for those requesting feedback:
#1 - You are not guaranteed feedback. It is entirely voluntary to give it.
#2 - Danbooru may simply not be an appropriate place for your favorite art. If so, accept this and move on.
#3 - Try not to be too thin-skinned,and don't take things personally.Rules for those giving feedback:
#1 - Give constructive feedback only.
#2 - Refrain from name-calling. Asking people to be thick-skinned doesn't mean you're allowed to be insulting.
Yes! I now flagged post because it's so low quality or poor
Mayhem-Chan said:
To me, the face on the left is wonky, and the arms + shoulders are quite thin compared to the torsos
Fair enough, with your added feedback, when I take a second look, it does look a little flat and the arms look a bit thin. I should've paid more attention to this one. Another silly avoidable anatomy mistake. Those get you real good most of the time.
Kawaii3Chan said:
Yes! I now flagged post because it's so low quality or poor
@Kawaii3Chan If you're the one who flagged post #7934692, "N word" is not a valid flag reason.
So I assume this is getting deleted eh ?
Because no one has approved this after 3 days
I don't understand what's wrong with it
glousk said:
I'm quite new here but these two upload I've made were not approved and I'm wondering why.
I do understand they're quite similar to their parents, however i'm seeing a lot of duplicates with the very same resolution being approved (like post #8511808 with post #8511813 (is there something I am missing ?)), or others cropped post like post #8491009 being approved.
What's the rule of thumb to follow here ?
Bumping this because I need an answer
post #8514321
post #8515714
post #8516603
post #8517372
What is wrong with these ? What's the problem? It's taking way too long for these to get approved
glousk said:
Bumping this because I need an answer
In general, art variants need to provide something significantly different, be of a higher resolution, or be a step up from the previous/other versions. Of these, #849232 provides a different context compared to the other three, but, for me, its not enough of a difference from #7564791. Similarly, the zoom-in for #8498257 is captured in #8499456.
"Now, what's the difference between the ones that were posted?" Well... while I can't say the -exact- reasons (I didn't approve these), one thing I do notice is the timing of the submissions. #8511808 was uploaded shortly before #8511813. The second one is a higher quality version, so it would count. Similarly, #8491009 was posted before #8499456, which means that, on first pass, the earlier one may approve and the "higher resolution, significantly different" factor would play in. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt on the reprints that the lower resolution one was done before finding the higher quality one, likewise #8491009 was posted earlier in the day compared to the next one.
Also, it's important to note that the second art is submitted by a contributor. Their art is approved automatically so there may be times when stuff would get approved which the approval process may not see get through.
What's wrong with this post ? It looks fine to me. What's wrong with it ? And what can I do to make it better ?
argentb said:
In general, art variants need to provide something significantly different, be of a higher resolution, or be a step up from the previous/other versions. Of these, #849232 provides a different context compared to the other three, but, for me, its not enough of a difference from #7564791. Similarly, the zoom-in for #8498257 is captured in #8499456.
"Now, what's the difference between the ones that were posted?" Well... while I can't say the -exact- reasons (I didn't approve these), one thing I do notice is the timing of the submissions. #8511808 was uploaded shortly before #8511813. The second one is a higher quality version, so it would count. Similarly, #8491009 was posted before #8499456, which means that, on first pass, the earlier one may approve and the "higher resolution, significantly different" factor would play in. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt on the reprints that the lower resolution one was done before finding the higher quality one, likewise #8491009 was posted earlier in the day compared to the next one.
Also, it's important to note that the second art is submitted by a contributor. Their art is approved automatically so there may be times when stuff would get approved which the approval process may not see get through.
It makes sense, thank you a lot for the thorough explanation
Alto1867 said:
post #8514321
post #8515714
post #8516603
post #8517372What is wrong with these ? What's the problem? It's taking way too long for these to get approved
Alto1867 said:
What's wrong with this post ? It looks fine to me. What's wrong with it ? And what can I do to make it better ?
Stop spamming the thread to beg about posts that are still in the modqueue
Not sure on some of these so please feel free to feedback on any of them if you have both time and an opinion.
post #8514543 It's a facial expression change for something two contributers have previously uploaded. Is there an issue with uploading this variant in particular?
post #8512321
post #8512314 Both of these are from an artist with limited deleted works. I know that's not necessarily enough to be approved but it's similar to most of their work in terms of style.
post #8500220 I assume it's the breast positioning but she is drawn like that sometimes so thought it'd be fine.
WoodyTheFemboy said:
Once again, what's wrong with these?
post #8278780
post #8424228
post #8434169
post #8452380
post #6574383
Repeating again
post #7078151 Not mine but a signatureless version of this was upped two weeks after the original got rejected on its second appeal.
Updated by NiceLittleDan
Curious why these didn't get approved, just for reference moving forward, please:
post #8517167
post #8516253
post #8513461
post #8509411
Thanks!
what's wrong with this one? post #8517357
Since I'm already a pain in the ass
Why did this got deleted. What was so wrong with it ? Is it the face or something ? Or I assume the approvers simply aren't big fans of this artist works ?
I looked at it several times and I couldn't see the issue
Some of the others I can sorta get. Weird anatomy and all. But why this ?
This one too. It seems like a pretty nice pic to me as well. What was the problem with it ?
Updated by Alto1867
Why were these rejected?
