User:Starwarssith/Article Critique

Thesis
I visited the traditional animation page on Wikipedia, and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: Lack of citations, Limited information on 2d computer animation, and lack of explaining the evolution of 2d animation.

Lack of Citations
It was disappointing when I got to the page and found the warning of lack of citations, as this is a topic I love and is a very common thing in media and cartoons. Not only that but it is also such a known topic there should be lots of websites and books that explain the process which studios go through to create an animation film. within a few minutes I was able to find 2 reliable sources that could help the page become more reliable.

Limited information on 2d computer animation
There are so many different types of 2D computer animation I was shocked none of it was mentioned in this article. This includes bone animation, frame by frame, mix of both, vector, and many others. There seemed to be little information on those and the article itself only focusing on paper animation, and leaving computer 2D animation out as if it was a bad thing, or less superior to drawing on paper (which is a lie because both have there own issues and strengths). Also, the amount of 2D animation that is done today would make one think it would be a very important part to this article.

Lack of 2D History
There is so much history in 2d animation that is not in this article, which is a downer as it is a huge part of the film and animation industry, starting with a Phenakistoscope to the short film the paper man (a mix of 2d and 3rd animation). There is also the evolution of cartoons which is left out, which also had a huge impact on the industry. There was also the lack of information of live action 2d-animation movies such as who framed roger rabbit left out.

Critique
This article was a good article if it was only for explaining old 2d animation but the lack of history, citation, and types of 2d animation types made it not to great. There is a tone of information that could be added to this article but it seems to give off a slight bias toward newer versions of 2d animation.