Critique pointers
Enough with the "nice sig" or "shitty tag" comments! You do not have to post something elaborate, but giving a few tips for improvement would be nice (and not considered spam). If you absolutely have nothing to critique about the sig, at least mention why you like it e.g. "I like it a lot! Especially the well rendered sheep and the lighting on the cow."
Avoid giving the sig a score. This is not a "rate the sig above" thread. Unless the topic starter specifically wanted you to rate it, its usually bad fashion in most graphic forums to give a score. How would you feel if someone came to your thread and goes "2/10."
Don't use overtly negative words (like "sucks", "horrible", "crap" etc) to describe a sig. If you're gonna use these kind of words you'd better be a better sig maker than the person who posted the sig.
See a sig the way it is meant to be. Some sigs, like flat vectors, have no depth. Don't look like an idiot and make a comment like "no depth". Not all sigs need lighting, depth, flow etc. Try and focus on finding out what the creator wanted to express instead of acting pro and going "Needs more depth, needs a better defined focal point" when the sig doesn't need these in the first place.
Always encourage the sig maker, especially if you can see that he/she has put in effort. End the comment with something like "But well, this part and that part is cool, nice attempt!" A sig, no matter how bad, always has something positive about it.
Never bring a personal feud to a comment. Negative comments on a sig just because you don't like the person just means you're an immature little bastard. Grow up.
Stuff to critique upon (not a complete list, and definitely NOT a list to be followed religiously):
- Depth
- Flow
- Background
- Render placement
- Color scheme
- Lighting
- Little details that the sig maker might have missed out on, like badly brushed portions etc.
- Composition
- Border
- Text
- Focal point
- Emotions portrayed
- Orginality/Creativity
- Overall aesthetic value
Note: If you have no idea what any of the above terms mean then don't use them.
Technical Jargon
Added this section to answer some of the more frequently asked questions about technical terms.
SIG: Short for "signature". Them little rectangular lazy-artwork that you see all over our graphics forum.
TAG: Short for "Tagline". Basically the same thing as a signature, except for some technical historical stuff that I would not get into. Use this term instead of "sig" to sound pro.
Stock: An image not created by you that you use while making a sig. Most people tend to cut out one part of a stock (such as one character out of a group) for use. Others like to use the background that comes with the stock image and manipulate it to create special effects.
Render: Used by most people (innapropriately I might add) to describe cut out stocks. This mistake is exacerbated by sites like GameRender and AnimeRender that provides nicely cut-out stocks but unfortunately calls them "renders". The CORRECT usage of this term is to describe 3D shapes rendered in a 3D modelling program like C4D or Bryce to a 2D platform for use in various places. C4D renders hence could be called "renders" for short.
Vector: Basic looking shapes filled usually with one color. Technically used to describe pieces that are made in Adobe Illustrator (or Flash or some other vector program) that do not lose their quality when stretched. When people use this term for sigs it usually refers to those simple (sometimes complex) looking shapes that you see frequently in stuff. Usually (for sigs) made with the pentool or the marquee tool in photoshop.
Composition: One of the more complex terms used to critique a sig. Basically describes how the elements in a sig interact together to create an aesthetically pleasing piece. Use this term with care.
Thanks for reading. Now go out there and flame those dudes that call a render a C4D.
Constructive critiques & Technical term 
Linear Mode
