Jump to content

Talk:Twelve basic principles of animation/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97198 (talk | contribs) at 07:06, 3 August 2008 (GA Review: butting in...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
  • 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]