Talk:Zeartist

Took some time to read over this today. From what I've read, it looks like the problem with the article are the following:

1. Not as abrasive as the normal tone of ED articles
2. Sometimes some of the words (maybe all) feel like they're wrongly blue-linked. I can't exactly explain the feeling, but it's like the pipe either shouldn't be there or feels out of place.
3. Not as amusing screenshot captions

Do these issues of the article stand out to anyone else? I think I'm missing several things on why the article isn't as lulzy.

OhSoSimple fucking wants your soul. You can help by NOT GIVING it. 00:48, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

1. So rewrite it?
2. Encyclopedia Dramatica:Why not pipe?
3. remove them/replace them with better?

overall it reads like another people article to me. It's not exactly in any way well written or popular, I wouldn't spend the time on it personally. It's tagged with {{crap}} and has been for a year. Also nice to have you back. Mike the Great (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

1. I probably will to try getting my skills back up, provided IRL stuff doesn't suffocate me again or if I spontaneously find something more interesting to touch up or write about.
2. That pretty much describes the feeling I got from reading it.
3. If and when I get around to digging the original shots, which most likely came from that MST mentioned in the article.

Also, thank you. Hopefully I can get some good content out during the upcoming break.

OhSoSimple fucking wants your soul. You can help by NOT GIVING it. 01:40, 15 May 2012 (EDT)