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: http://i.imgur.com/9CoTGPA.png
- 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). imgur.com/a/ZP8xY goo.gl/X1nAqA
3. There're other blocks that look much closer to <aside> that handled properly in my template. imgur.com/a/aIRdl goo.gl/U323qa
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: goo.gl/QAiVrk - Missing content imgur.com/a/mE8xA
#11: goo.gl/no3sfS - Regular paragraphs used as subtitles.
- Declined by admin
- Agree with the appeal.
- Type of issue
- IV page is missing essential content
- Jun 18, 2017