The Instant View Editor uses a three-column layout, so you really want to use it on a desktop screen that's wide enough. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Back to the main page »



Link Preview

Issue #4

This part of the article is semantically a pullquote, not a blockquote. No one is being cited (it's the same interviewee), this is just a highlight.
It's more a design question, but not an issue.

Speaking of semantics: this is not a pullquote, because it's not taken from the main text of the article. See:
Accepted by admin
Speaking of semantics Captiaon Raptor is right. But It's displayed centered in the article's text and is looking like a pullquote. That's why it should be shown as such.
There're several reasons why pull-quote shouldn't be used for such blocks:

1. Text is not centered on the source page. It only has bigger font size in the source preview, but it varies depending on screen-width.
2. This block is used for regular quotes. It becomes hard to read long centered text (while on the source page they're not centered).
3. There're other blocks that look much closer to <aside> that handled properly in my template.
4. Difference between <aside> and <blockquote> compared to the source is the same:
Source: Black border below & above the quote, left-aligned text
<blockquote>: Black border on the left, that separates it from other text, left-aligned text
<aside>: No borders, centered text.

If you still think that my point is wrong, consider checking other templates: they have much more critical issues. Examples:
#10: - Missing content
#11: - Regular paragraphs used as subtitles.
Declined by admin
Agree with the appeal.
Type of issue
IV page is missing essential content
Jun 18, 2017