User:Jelotan/Animation/Adelehink Peer Review

First off, I totally agree that the horse in the original article could use improvement, it's kind of a bad example to have provided for rotoscoping, especially since the horse is stylized. I am just not sure if you are able to insert your own work into a wikipedia example, would that be a conflict of interest since there is no citation/outside source except your own work? I don't think you should fix the hitch at the end because as you said then it wouldn't be through and through rotoscoped, and I assume that's why you are fixing the preexisting gif.

This content is definitely neutral, but I would think of wording as to why you are replacing the old gif, and why you think it is a better example of rotoscoping. Also, should "Eadweard Muybridge's 19th-century photos" be a part of the actual meat of the article in the rotoscoping section instead of just the image caption? I feel like there could be more information on what that is, because according to my limited knowledge about animation history, this was revolutionary in realizing how to animate.

Regardless really well done rotoscope example you are adding, I just would make sure that it's not considered a conflict of interest since it's your own work, and find some more citations to add to the meat of the article. Super cool animation!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)