`==GA Review== This review is transcluded from Talk:12 basic principles of animation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.   Articles are not usually reviewed so soon after they are posted at WP:GAC, 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.  A major problem is that the article does not adhere to WP:LEAD; the introduction should be a summary of the entire article.  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?  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 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 then 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.  The quality of the sources pose a problem, as well.  Many of the references come from a wiki relating to the website Blender, am I correct?  Wikis, although easily accessible, are not typically considered reliable sources because they can be written by anyone.  This wiki in particular does not seem to cite its own sources, which is usually a red flag.  I'm not sure who ``William`` is, but 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?  The Illusion of Life can potentially be used more, as well.  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 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,   con `