53:. 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?
42:, 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.
91:
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
56:
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
141:(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.
119:
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.
159:
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!
136:
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
84:, 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?
92:
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,
61:
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.
152:), 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.
57:
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
17:
149:
106:
156:
73:
64:
The quality of the sources pose a problem, as well. Many of the references come from a wiki relating to the website
72:
because they can be written by anyone. This wiki in particular does not cite its own references, although a
100:
170:
130:
113:
76:(including Knowledge) is linked to from the main page; all of these should be red flags. Although "Willia
23:
94:
46:
39:
163:
123:
69:
144:
As for background and reception, I've added this too. Remember though, that this
81:
68:, am I correct? Wikis, although easily accessible, are not typically considered
38:
Articles are not usually reviewed so soon after they are posted at
155:
I believe your fail was a bit premature; keep in mind that
65:
45:
A major problem is that the article does not adhere to
49:; the introduction should be a summary of the
8:
148:an article on the book (which has its own
24:Talk:12 basic principles of animation/GA1
18:Talk:Twelve basic principles of animation
88:can potentially be used more, as well.
7:
31:
1:
186:
171:14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
131:16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
114:15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
86:The Illusion of Life
82:developer at Blender
112:
22:(Redirected from
177:
169:
166:
129:
126:
109:
103:
98:
97:
70:reliable sources
27:
185:
184:
180:
179:
178:
176:
175:
174:
164:
161:
124:
121:
107:
101:
93:
74:list of sources
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
183:
181:
134:
133:
51:entire article
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
182:
173:
172:
168:
167:
158:
153:
151:
147:
142:
140:
132:
128:
127:
118:
117:
116:
115:
110:
104:
96:
89:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
62:
60:
54:
52:
48:
43:
41:
33:
25:
19:
162:
154:
145:
143:
138:
135:
122:
90:
85:
77:
63:
58:
55:
50:
44:
37:
157:quick fail
34:GA Review
165:Lampman
150:article
125:Lampman
80:" is a
66:Blender
47:WP:LEAD
146:is not
137:Willia
40:WP:GAC
102:habla
95:María
16:<
108:migo
59:then
105:con
139:n
111:)
99:(
78:n
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.