I tried some different background shading techniques here, and tried to vary how I handled the lighting, but just a little bit. The light in the last panel comes from the far left. It`s getting there, but it`s still new territory for me. I like the silhouette in the second panel and may use that more to spice up blank backgrounds.
You know, I should probably mention my knock on Wikipedia. I`m a big fan of peer review. Academia, however, has it wrong right now. Peer review shouldn`t take over a year, shouldn`t be so political, and shouldn`t be the measure of a career. It should simply be a filter, a filter of experience and know-how. It helps separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. That doesn`t mean everything that gets through is good, or everything that fails is bad, but it`s one way to find good avenues to pursue.
Which is where Wikipedia falls in — they should collect the wheat that ends up on the threshing floor, ready to be burned. I like where they`re going. It should work, in theory. You know, like Communism. The problem is that in reality, you get a bunch of jerks who ruin everything. To prevent this, they had administrators, automated analysis, and other tools to help monitor work on Wikipedia and “revert changes” (a.k.a. “set it straight”) based on the administrator`s whims. Basically, it`s a peer review system for a site that prides itself on its lack of peer review, the place that is supposed to buck the system. It`s an impractical system which is brought up to speed by false assumptions.
It`s a great place to get some casual information that is of no relevance, but if you need something important, I`d suggest peer-reviewed sources. If you can`t wait 24 hours for a peer review, you should probably be calling 911 anyway. It`s a fun casual exercise, but I certainly wouldn`t settle a bet with Wikipedinformation (I just made that up).