"oh wait no" - pretty fucking good reason for flagging mr.anonymous flagger. Shame on you.
I think that flaggers should be more...well... transparent? I (and i assume rest of our community) would like who is that person.

Drewko said:

"oh wait no" - pretty fucking good reason for flagging mr.anonymous flagger. Shame on you.
I think that flaggers should be more...well... transparent? I (and i assume rest of our community) would like who is that person.

That one is marked as "RESOLVED" and was made by an approver. Thus it's likely they accidentally approved it, flagged it to return it to the queue, it was approved again, then flagged again by someone else. So contain the calamity within thy mammaries; though they could have been more descriptive, yes.

Still, i don't see a reason for flag.
Firstly, there's no rule thay says about flagging derativate work, heck - we have an entire tag for it. Check it out.
Secondly, if somebody redrawn kinda like 50-75% of an image, i find it pretty impresive and interesting. It's an piece of art, and i don't see why it should be treated like this.

I was the one who flagged it. I noticed that the background is poorly done - I mean, look at the strand line, she can't possibly be wading that deep considering the perspective. And then I also noticed that it was a derivative work and assumed that a poorly redrawn image does not belong here. Any other questions?

Some pictures here don't even have a background...
And it's pretty easy to call it poorly redrawn when you're not an artist!!!
I say it's quite good and did not ask to be reported or deleted, derivative work or not, it's a lot better done than some stuff going around...

I would like to throw in my 2 cents here.

While the overall image is OK, strictly speaking, the disparity between the retouched foreground work (the naked girl) and the background work (the beach as a whole) is enormous.

First of all, when I see a foreground object is done well while the background object is poorly sloshed together, I write it off as the person just not being strong doing background (I was like this as well).

When I see a foreground object being done very well because it is a derived work, I chalk it up to the person just practicing with a guide.

Throw that into a poorly drawn background? It's like the image was done by two different people. In the end, I believe flagging it as a poorly drawn derivative work is enough to warrant its removal. If it was more or less poorly drawn overall but conveys its message well, I can live with that. This work, though, feels a bit dishonest because of the disparity in quality within a single piece of work.