Talk:Twelve basic principles of animation/GA2

GA Review

I'm gonna review this. Looks interesting! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a few issues that need addressing, so I'm putting this nom on hold.

I fixed some of the grammar, you should make sure to go over the article a few times, saying it aloud or in your head.
Question: I'm no expert, but shouldn't the Illusion of Life section go under the Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life article? I can see how it provides background (which is why you should keep some of it), but this article is about the 12 principles, not the book. The section about the 9 old men is particularly out of place and could be cut down. I suppose a link above the section, something like Main Article: Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life would work... just a comment.
The link Hamilton Luske in the first section is red. Red=bad.
- Actually, red=useful, most of the time. Read WP:RED. —97198 talk 07:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The end of the 2nd paragraph in "Illusion of Life": Disney exploitaion is a bit biased, plus it is not really relevant to the article that they did try to make money.
I really would like images for all or at least half of the principles, especially staging and arcs (the two sections that are kind of unclear), if it's possible. :)
The first sentence on Solid Drawing is bad; I'm not sure what "really means" is describing (after the comma). Is it describing the principle of solid drawing, or good drawing, or something else entirely.
How can computer animators benefit from using solid drawing? Elaborate.
In appeal, you end by saying there are several techniques, but you only name two. This could use a pic too, if there is one.
The note is confusing. It's not really helpful where it is, and it doesn't explain what was shortened. I'm not sure if it's relevant in this page, but I could be wrong about that.
hmmm refs from Blender... hmmm... it's a wiki, so I'm not sure if that's good enough. I'll do some research, but you might want to see if you can find a source that's totally reliable to subsitute.
what makes ref #50 reliable (the frank&ollie one)?

Hope that helps. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page! Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I asked at the help desk about the Blender thing, and I recieved this response:

I would personally say no to this. This is a wiki, which means it is not really reliable, someone can change it to whatever they want, up to and including swear words, etc. See our guidelines on reliable sources. However not all is lost, check the wiki for what sources it is referencing. At most use this as an additional source, for clarifying information, but perhaps not for verifying large chunks of information. —— nixeagle 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm going to remove this from the list of GA nominees until you clear up all of the problems and find new refs. Sorry. Feel free to renominate it when you feel it is ready. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]