http://66.media.tumblr.com/95e45b401718917b87a49cdaaa1e541f/tumblr_o88mp9Xri71r7itnwo1_1280.png So I posted this image to e621, and simply put, it got removed for "not meeting minimum quality standards" and I'm not quite sure why. I can absolutely understand this not being everyone's cup of tea, being weird fandomy dialogue based stuff, but I mean, the character is on-model, the art is relevant to the site, the artistic quality, I would say, fits perfectly within the bounds of acceptable posting, the artist has other pics on the site already, and while the narrative section at the bottom might be considered a bit wonky, bad dialogue/text is not a valid reason on its own to remove a picture. Any context to this removal would be much appreciated?

naughtea said:
the character is on-model

The image seems to be reasonable except for this.

There's some perspective wonkiness that makes the back hind leg look larger than the front hind leg, and the character's head makes an impossible angle with his body.

Looks like Parasprite deleted it, so go ask her.

Clawdragons said:
The image seems to be reasonable except for this.

There's some perspective wonkiness that makes the back hind leg look larger than the front hind leg, and the character's head makes an impossible angle with his body.

I agree that there is some wonkiness, but this site has content that's a lot more wonky than this.

That head being positioned like this compared to the torso looks really, really painful, more than the actual sword being stabbed in.

But beside this and maybe the cheesy text under, I seriously have no clue how that got tagged without enough quality merits

I'd say it's fairly unreadable overall due to lack of body contrast (dark grey on black / vice versa -> also sitting on a BRIGHT bg that washes out what little contrast there is).

It also has some stairstepping in odd places (certain parts of checkerboard, for example) and a certain sanded-off look to the lines, that make me think it's been upscaled via eg. waifu2x

savageorange said:
I'd say it's fairly unreadable overall due to lack of body contrast (dark grey on black / vice versa -> also sitting on a BRIGHT bg that washes out what little contrast there is).

Oh yeah. I was going to mention the unreadability. It took me a long time to realize what was going on in the image.

The difficulty to read is a part of the Homestuck storytelling method. We, the viewers, are reading what the characters are doing as if we are the characters.

a) not sure whether you are talking about the text (CD and I are both talking about the illustration AFAICS)

b) I can see this as being done in homestuck style. That doesn't seem to me to affect judgement of quality too much
(if it's hard to read it's artistically bad in a fairly objective sense, and if it's just following the source material, then the source material is bad in the same way. Even if it is intentionally bad for a specific, well thought-out reason.)

savageorange said:
a) not sure whether you are talking about the text (CD and I are both talking about the illustration AFAICS)

b) I can see this as being done in homestuck style. That doesn't seem to me to affect judgement of quality too much
(if it's hard to read it's artistically bad in a fairly objective sense, and if it's just following the source material, then the source material is bad in the same way. Even if it is intentionally bad for a specific, well thought-out reason.)

Intentionally bad, yes. Well-thought? Can of worms.

Well, whether it's well thought out or not is really besides the point -- that's what I was trying to convey. Intentionally bad and unintentionally bad are still both bad.