Talk:PowerPoint animation/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Having reviewed this article against the good article criteria I'm afraid that I have several concerns:
- My most serious concern is that the whole tenor of the article sounds like a "how-to" manual, which Wikipedia is not. Just one example of many I could have picked: "Another way to produce these animations is by animating a cartoon as a single slide acting as a frame of film. This is done by setting the slide transitions to 00:00 time and to run automatically."
- The premise on which this article is based appears to be that PowerPoint can be used to make animated movies. That it can produce animated sequences is a topic that ought already to have been described in the PowerPoint article. However, this article tells the reader almost nothing about what movies have been produced in this way, how successful they've been (commercially successful?), how they've been critically received, who's making animated movies in this way, why animators have chosen to use PowerPoint instead of purpose-built tools (or why they haven't) ... I could go on.
- The lead should be a summary of the article, but it consists of only two sentences, the second of which appears to repeat what's said in the first.
- Large parts of the article appear to be uncited original research: most of the Movies section; the first paragraphs of both Games and Drawbacks; the last paragraph of Custom Animation and all of Animation Trigger.
- What makes PowerPoint Heaven, Indezine, and PPTFAQ reliable sources?
- The screen dump of ShadowFighter appears to be a copyright violation. The copyright notice on the PowerPoint Heaven web site says: "The use of the information contained within PowerPoint Heaven(site) site is free and may be copied for personal use and presentations as long as credit is given to its respective authors. These materials may not be copied for commercial use or distribution, nor may these materials be modified or reposted to other sites unless otherwise stated." That doesn't seem consistent with the GFDL or equivalent licence required for use on Wikipedia.
I think these are non-trivial issues that will take significant time to resolve, but I'm nevertheless going to put this article on hold for three days initially to see what can be done, or to gather other opinions. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have picked your comment at random and fixed a spelling error and a grammatical error. Hope you don't mind. 174.118.40.209 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)