Talk:Twelve basic principles of animation

Copyvio

Removed the Beauty Beast image - it's a WP:copyvio in this context.

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.) --Janke | Talk 04:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

"Modern-day animators, working with computers, may not need to draw at all. Yet their work can still benefit greatly from a basic understanding of these principles."

Sounds like the sort of statement that would be made by a traditional artist who does not have a solid grasp of Digital animation. Of course, some animators, particularly in film or using programs designed for amateurs do not model / draw as there is dedicated staff for those roles but the statement seems to imply that this content appears from nowhere. This is an attitude, as a 3D artist, I have encountered in traditional art circles a number of times and I think this statement should be modified to remove this kind of bias for fear of damaging peoples understanding of this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That part is based on websites dedicated specifically to digital animation, but maybe I have misrepresented their points. What would you suggest as a better way of saying it? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:12 basic principles of animation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Articles are not usually reviewed so soon after they are posted at WP:GAC, but since I was reading the article anyway, I decided to go ahead and review. :) Although a very good start for an article on a fascinating topic, I'm afraid it needs quite a bit of work in order to be promoted to GA-class. I am failing the nomination at this time based on the issues raised below.

A major problem is that the article does not adhere to WP:LEAD; the introduction should be a summary of the entire article. As it stands now, the article is almost completely composed of material that does not appear in the body of the article. The publishing history of the book that includes the 12 basic principles of animation, the idea's genesis, the major players... all of this needs to be fully detailed and expanded in the article itself. How about a "History" or "Background" section to begin the article so these points can be discussed?

Similarly, although the lead alludes to the importance of the book, and therefore the twelve principles, and its lasting legacy, there is no "Reception" or "Legacy" section. What have other animators said about the subject? What influence has it had? Is it still utilized today, even with CGI and computer animation? These are hinted upon in the lead, but entire sections need to be written in regards to these points. I typically find it easiest to write the article and then write the lead, so as to be sure of not missing anything. In short, every main section (even a short summary of the 12 basic principles themselves) of the article must be summarized in the lead.

The quality of the sources pose a problem, as well. Many of the references come from a wiki relating to the website Blender, am I correct? Wikis, although easily accessible, are not typically considered reliable sources because they can be written by anyone. This wiki in particular does not cite its own references, although a list of sources (including Wikipedia) is linked to from the main page; all of these should be red flags. Although "Willian" is a developer at Blender, it is advisable that reliable, third-party, published sources be found to replace those from the wiki. Are the works listed under "Further reading" usable? Are there any scholarly journals or articles available? The Illusion of Life can potentially be used more, as well.

On a high note, the article's prose is mostly well written and the images are correctly tagged. It is also obviously stable and neutral. There is a lot of promise for such an interesting topic, but the issues described above are crucial for a good article. I'm sure that all points can be resolved in time, but unfortunately it will take more time than the typical seven day hold will facilitate. If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought I'd give it a shot. I wrote the best article that the sources I had available would permit. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get my hands on the book itself, which would probably be a necessity for the changes you're suggesting. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it turns out that "Illusion of Life" is in fact available online on Amazon (I must have checked the UK site first), so I've been able to add some refs straight from the horses' mouth. This means a less heavy reliance on Blender and Willian (I totally missed that weird 'n' there). I kept some of them though - I'm aware of this blanket scepticism against wikis, but the fact is that he covers the topic better than anyone else, often being more comprehensive than even the original authors themselves.

As for background and reception, I've added this too. Remember though, that this is not an article on the book (which has its own article), simply on the 12 principles. Too much on this aspect of the topic would be a violation of GA criterion 3b - unnecessary detail - so I've kept it to one, substantial paragraph.

I believe your fail was a bit premature; keep in mind that quick fail should only be used in extreme cases, such as complete lack of sources, which is clearly not the case here. I trust you will have another look at the article now though, and that I won't have to go through another nomination process. Cheers! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)