Requesting review of the Marjan Šiklić article on Lolcow Wiki

[Ruin]

Definitely an excellent article. Some minor formatting quibbling aside (based entirely on personal preference), I see no problems.



I'd say add it with the caveat as to who the source is.

It's not verified until it's proven.

I can confirm this. The post is from the PWOT forums which I was an active member of at the time and one of the admins confirmed the poster was using a Croatian IP. I'll try to dig up the post.

 

[Meatman]

0/10 its shit

 

[MegasHant]

He has a new twitter account that is currently active, that needs to be added to the article: https://twitter.com/Caamib88

 

[Cubanodun]

Definitely an excellent article. Some minor formatting quibbling aside (based entirely on personal preference), I see no problems.



I'd say add it with the caveat as to who the source is.

It's not verified until it's proven.

he explained that in his AMA in Cracked.com along other things, sadly i did not keep all the links because almost where the same boring stuff again and gain, but IIRC he mentioned being in cracked in his blog

edit: nvm i found it

It was in his blog

inside is the link to the thread in cracked

 

[blackie toy]

Also I'm not crazy about opening the article with an epigraph. I think if this were a news article or a book chapter that might be fine, but the Wiki format is pretty well standardized at this point.

 

[HickoryDickory]

Hickory - yeah, but I was never rejected in a way that it hurt. Women who hurt me were those who didn't initially reject me. You must remember the original context. As for the meds, yes, I was taking a slight amount of an antipsychotic but my treatment was for depression and that drug was said to have antidepressant quality as well. I wasn't declared schizophrenic. Had I been I'd be taking completely different medication. You havent proven this in any context at all. Any. The first thing is dependent on the context. This one? Pure bs. Where is the movement thing ?

I forgot he accepted the cap as his in the 5eva thread.

 

[Geewunner]

It's a pretty good article, I like your writing style, plus I like how, as I think someone else here said, you don't directly attack him, you use his own statements against him to show how much of an retard he is.

 

[Wilkins]

It's an eye sore. Use media, lists, quotes, videos, anything you can to break up the massive unrelenting walls of text.

 

[blackie toy]

It's an eye sore. Use media, lists, quotes, videos, anything you can to break up the massive unrelenting walls of text.

I'm not a big fan of dumping lots of floating media in wiki articles, especially because what looks good in terms of layout at one screen resolution may look awful at another. One common problem in short articles on Wikipedia with loads of photos is that you tend to get a mile long list of items on the right side of the page, running well after the article ends. Another problem is that people tend not to be very good at writing image captions. Even floated quotes tend to suck: People usually aren't good at picking those, and unless they're right next to the text where they're relevant (see the above problem with floating media and screen resolutions) it's entirely without context and not helpful.

Here are some recommendations for improving the article structure in terms of readability:

The lede needs to be shortened a bit. Four to five paragraphs is probably max, with the lede serving to summarize the overall article. The main sections, at least the really large ones, should probably be spun out into subarticles, with those sections turned into summaries of those subarticles (about 3-4 paragraphs per summary section).

The "web presences" in the infobox should probably be dropped down to an external links section at the bottom. If you want to include external links in the infobox it should probably be one or two blogs, or simply a "see below" with a section link to the external links section.

The use of references as explanatory footnotes is not ideal. Explain things in the article text and drop a footnote that just directly links to the source. If you need to use explanatory footnotes (e.g., as is done at one point in the infobox), those should be kept very short. Wiki readers don't typically like explanatory footnotes (indeed, readers in general don't read substantive footnotes).

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not a big fan of dumping lots of floating media in wiki articles, especially because what looks good in terms of layout at one screen resolution may look awful at another. One common problem in short articles on Wikipedia with loads of photos is that you tend to get a mile long list of items on the right side of the page, running well after the article ends.

There's not much danger of that happening here, as it's a giant wall of text.

A problem is there isn't all that much relevant media. Other than a few pictures, not much exists on Sikfuc.

 

[Wilkins]

I'm not a big fan of dumping lots of floating media in wiki articles, especially because what looks good in terms of layout at one screen resolution may look awful at another. One common problem in short articles on Wikipedia with loads of photos is that you tend to get a mile long list of items on the right side of the page, running well after the article ends. Another problem is that people tend not to be very good at writing image captions. Even floated quotes tend to suck: People usually aren't good at picking those, and unless they're right next to the text where they're relevant (see the above problem with floating media and screen resolutions) it's entirely without context and not helpful.

Here are some recommendations for improving the article structure in terms of readability:

The lede needs to be shortened a bit. Four to five paragraphs is probably max, with the lede serving to summarize the overall article. The main sections, at least the really large ones, should probably be spun out into subarticles, with those sections turned into summaries of those subarticles (about 3-4 paragraphs per summary section).

The "web presences" in the infobox should probably be dropped down to an external links section at the bottom. If you want to include external links in the infobox it should probably be one or two blogs, or simply a "see below" with a section link to the external links section.

The use of references as explanatory footnotes is not ideal. Explain things in the article text and drop a footnote that just directly links to the source. If you need to use explanatory footnotes (e.g., as is done at one point in the infobox), those should be kept very short. Wiki readers don't typically like explanatory footnotes (indeed, readers in general don't read substantive footnotes).

Your reply was equally as much of an eye sore.

 

[LikeicareKF]

Too long, not broken up with enough images

Im sure it looks great to you guys, but i was under the impression that this was for the public to read too, at the moment it just looks like a huge wall of text which the average person will be discouraged by and will just read the ED article

 

[EI 903]

Some pics really could help just for visual flow. Like a pic of fschmidt where he has a little subsection. A handful of small images like that would be nice.

 

[AnOminous]

Some pics really could help just for visual flow. Like a pic of fschmidt where he has a little subsection. A handful of small images like that would be nice.

Images with funny captions that hit the major points for the people afraid of the textwall. Maybe even a few screen caps of particularly Marjan-y goodness.

 

[HickoryDickory]

There could be some caps of his poetry slams.

 

[24isthehighestnumber]

Some pics really could help just for visual flow. Like a pic of fschmidt where he has a little subsection. A handful of small images like that would be nice.

Anyone want that image from the first thread with Marj and Fscmidt's faces photoshopped onto the cover of Sonichu #0? Might make for a good addition to that segment.