Patxinaki: The balance is okay, since they're moving figures they can be tilted this way or that and still look correct.
Two things I noticed is, with some exceptions, a lack of overlap and no indication of foreshortening.
Introducing overlap is simple on a basic standing figure, if you know the general shapes of the basic anatomical parts: head's an oval, torso's a rectangle, pelvis is a rectangle. It's possible to represent them differently but that's the basic idea. I want to stress that by shape I mean just that, if you wanted you could cut those shapes out of paper then experiment with different poses, don't even need to worry about perspective, and still it's possible to get decent space, foreshortening, and solidity out of it.
Another technique is to use circular cross contours like those found on a cylinder. I noticed that you were dividing the arms and legs with straight lines, but if you divide them with lines of varying amounts of curvature you can indicate different amounts of foreshortening.





I've never done this before, so I'm probably missing the whole point of the exercise... 
Thanks. For better images taken with a camera, take the pictures outside either in direct sunlight, or outdoors in the shade. (I would mention that overcast light works well, but I have a feeling you don’t get many murky New England days in Afghanistan.)
It looks like you could also benefit by studying photographs of people dancing. See if you can get your skeleton a bit more refined as 3D shapes, too.
). Maybe they're still not absolutely correct, but I think they're looking much better now.
I haven't figured what I need exactly, besides, well, the basics...
I have a question about Scientific illustration. Obviously I can't just draw a scientifically exact skeleton out of my mind, so I can use a reference, right? Is just changing the pose enough?
So I'd rather make it a 'ten-years-from-now plan', and keep the avatar as a passive reminder.



Bookmarks