Talk:Twelve basic principles of animation/GA2
Appearance
GA Review
I'm gonna review this. Looks interesting! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)