T34/38 said:
post #3474139
Bear in mind that I'm not a mod, but my guess is that it wasn't approved because each of her individual thighs is thicker than her waist.
Posted under General
T34/38 said:
post #3474139
Bear in mind that I'm not a mod, but my guess is that it wasn't approved because each of her individual thighs is thicker than her waist.
May i ask why this hasn't been approved yet? While her parent did get approved a while already.
Uzimaki-BE said:
May i ask why this hasn't been approved yet? While her parent did get approved a while already.
The parent was uploaded but an unrestricted user (me) so it didn't have to be approved. Also, you shouldn't post stuff here that's still pending since there's a chance it'll be approved still.
Unbreakable said:
The parent was uploaded but an unrestricted user (me) so it didn't have to be approved. Also, you shouldn't post stuff here that's still pending since there's a chance it'll be approved still.
Well, i asked a Moderator, he told me to ask it here, so hence why i asked it here.
can I have some feedback on why post #3495839, post #3495209 and
post #3495292 got deleted?
dikkun11037 said:
post #3495839
Really thin waist. I know that's in line with the official style, but the rest of picture isn't - and the mismatch doesn't really work that well. Even discounting that the image is pretty average.
dikkun11037 said:
post #3495209
It's a little bit sketchy and blurry in places - but I think those are within parameters. Honestly I probably would have let this through.
dikkun11037 said:
post #3495292
One of the feet is slightly odd, but I also don't think that's enough to pass it over. I'd put this one at a solid borderline too. Male focus unfortunately doesn't grab as much attention.
I honestly wasn't able to tell why this was considered poor quality. It's cute, no flaws in the anatomy, and looks very similar and if not better than similar posts such as post #2473700.
忍猫 said:
I honestly wasn't able to tell why this was considered poor quality. It's cute, no flaws in the anatomy, and looks very similar and if not better than similar posts such as post #2473700.
It looks very scribbly and rough, with colors going over lines, which isn’t that popular. Unevenly lighted photographs of drawings don’t look that appealing either, IMO. Personally, I don’t like the stars, which look like they were added digitally, clashing with the traditional media look.
post #2473700 on the other hand looks a lot cleaner and nothing clashes with each other.
kittey said:
It looks very scribbly and rough, with colors going over lines, which isn’t that popular. Unevenly lighted photographs of drawings don’t look that appealing either, IMO. Personally, I don’t like the stars, which look like they were added digitally, clashing with the traditional media look.
post #2473700 on the other hand looks a lot cleaner and nothing clashes with each other.
I see where you're coming from. Thanks for the feedback!
hello, I would like to know why post #3497312 is deemed as poor quality? and for post #3497457 is it because the source is from twitter?
I wonder why this one got rejected.
Uzimaki-BE said:
I wonder why this one got rejected.
Ugh, looks like these are common issues with this artist.
What is the problem with this image?
Nepcoheart said:
What is the problem with this image?
For one thing it has no source making approving post harder. Second it's edited by a third party (like decensor and upping the res) . Which it pretty much a no approval.
post #3500967
The child was approved?
What's wrong with these two?
post #3503501
post #3503476
post #3503455
So i wonder why these 3 got deleted? Especially the first one, because that's from a CG, they all looked solid to me.