Flagger said:

Piss poor anatomy. Look at the waist.

Next time, please refrain from using gutter language.

I see no problem with the waist, it curves like a waist is supposed to given her position. Artist probably shouldn't have cut the lower leg portion out of the picture since it gives way to an awkward view but even then it's anatomically correct for the most part.

The flagger probably meant "hips" rather than "waist". Waist-to-hips ratios of less than .6 do not occur in nature.

NWSiaCB said:

The flagger probably meant "hips" rather than "waist". Waist-to-hips ratios of less than .6 do not occur in nature.

I'm sorry, what?

Rathurue said:

I'm sorry, what?

And from a glance, most of those are in the .7 range. In fact, even the strict Japanese standard of "ideal" proportions has a ratio of .75.

Waist-hip ratios below .6 are essentially only possible with organ-crushing corsets.

"Wasting" an appeal doesn't sound very confident for an appeal reason, I've to say.
Personally, I think the hips are still ok, but the image as a whole is not really to my liking, either.