Uh, title, I guess? Idunno.

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/55412929/

Or, if it doesn't meet the standard, what would need to change?

There's a certain intentionality to non anti-aliased linework that smoother techniques don't quite offer. Ideally, every single pixel is there because you put it there, though in practice some pixels are still going to be more crucial to the final image than others.
I also find it easier to achieve consistent line thickness this way, and at any rate the jaggies aren't terribly significant at resolutions that high (doubly so if FA shrinky-dinks the file).

If you have to ask for a second opinion on whether your artwork is good enough, it probably doesn't meet quality standards to begin with.

How to make sure that your artwork does meet quality standards?
Improve your artwork until it looks like the majority of approved posts here. Otherwise, you'd be skirting the standards with every upload.

If I were personally to evaluate this, let's go to what is in the rules: (Out of order.)

All submissions need to be presented in a legible / readable format.

No problems on this one.

The chosen medium (image, video, flash) needs to be of a high quality. Traditional media needs to be either scanned in properly or photographed with impeccable lighting and contrast.

It's a lossless PNG of medium-high resolution. Since it's not a scan, scan quality isn't relevant in this case, but I think it's worth quoting that entire portion of the rule since traditional art has an uphill battle for approval. The rule says impeccable and means it.

All submissions need to display a solid grasp of artistic principles.

On its own and not in association with the hypothetical comic this may not pass. Effort was put into the foreskin but some of the other shapes are extremely simple. Simplistic art styles don't by default fail minimum quality standards, but without entire characters and the only art of the characters being ripped from games, the simplistic style is the only thing to judge. It wouldn't shock me if it got approved, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it got deleted. I would not personally try posting it unless the hypothetical comic happens and passes quality standards.

Of note, even if you did post it you'd need to identify every artist specifically to ensure none are DNP, or conditionally are DNP for edits.

Your other art was rejected but is so intentionally grotesquely stylized I can't guess what this comic would actually look like or what your skill level is. Don't try to re-upload if something is deleted, which you've already learned. You can track that in your profile, and opening the deleted submissions will show the reason for deletion.

So if you're committed to making this comic you're envisioning, start there and then seek feedback on how well you can draw.

I will say one thing I don't agree with, looking at comments on the deleted submissions: something being of niche appeal that most will hate or downvote isn't a reason to not bother with it. Whether posts are approved isn't a popularity contest. Some popular posts get deleted, while some extremely unpopular posts are allowed. The main thing you need to watch for is the quality, and I think your existing work on FA is so stylized it's hard to judge where your skill lies.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If you have to ask for a second opinion on whether your artwork is good enough, it probably doesn't meet quality standards to begin with.

How to make sure that your artwork does meet quality standards?
Improve your artwork until it looks like the majority of approved posts here. Otherwise, you'd be skirting the standards with every upload.

Respectfully, I highly disagree with that advice. Nor do I think art barely qualifying intrinsically means that art isn't worth preserving here. I am not an artist, but I very nearly didn't post a bunch of sketch art lost to the Tumblr debacle, and it was clarified to me after archiving some of it that it's fine as long as it's clear the artist understands what they are doing. There are plenty of skilled people that lack confidence, and no one should be discouraged from asking a question for feedback. There are also many different art styles, to the point it's possible for someone without art knowledge to just recognize some artists on style alone. I don't think a majority of the art here has some sort of visual consensus on how it looks.

I think the question deserved a direct answer. So, while I am not an artist, I did my best to give one.

zeorp said:
Respectfully, I highly disagree with that advice. Nor do I think art barely qualifying intrinsically means that art isn't worth preserving here. I am not an artist, but I very nearly didn't post a bunch of sketch art lost to the Tumblr debacle, and it was clarified to me after archiving some of it that it's fine as long as it's clear the artist understands what they are doing. There are plenty of skilled people that lack confidence, and no one should be discouraged from asking a question for feedback. There are also many different art styles, to the point it's possible for someone without art knowledge to just recognize some artists on style alone. I don't think a majority of the art here has some sort of visual consensus on how it looks. .

I'm not going to sugercoat it. While it may sound brutal and discouraging, it is the most direct and honest truth about our strict quality standards.
Posting artwork here so that it can be "preserved" or "achieved" ain't going to cut it. You have to have some skill to back that up (or understand your own limitations).
That was what I was taught years ago when I posted my own artworks here (which also got denied).

New artists have to understand that this website isn't a hugbox nor is it their personal art gallery.
Of course, nothing is stopping them from trying to post their own artworks. After all, everybody gets 10 tries to get it right.
However, if it gets deleted due to quality standards, then they really need to step up their game instead of trying to find the bare minimum that is required.

Unfortunately, what a lot of people end up doing is coming to the forums to whine about it (not saying OP is doing that), or asking how some similar-styled artwork got approved but not theirs, or why hasn't theirs got approved yet after 30 days.
Even if you had followed the quality standards to the letter, you are not guaranteed to have your artwork approved.
You'd still have to "please" the Approver reviewing it, and there are quite a number of them with varying levels of taste.

That's why back to OP's question, you want to know whether or not something meets quality standards?
Make something good enough that it will please every Approver. Don't give them something that makes them doubt the quality of your artwork.