User blog comment:TheGoldenPatrik1/Fanon Article Standards!?/@comment-29771477-20170920111633/@comment-28083312-20170920185852

I messaged you a few times lad. I got no response, & you’ve not contacted me since except to ask for bot help, again, for one of those three areas I mentioned. I’m always open if you have ideas to bounce off me, but if you’re not involved then you’re not involved. Glad to see that’s changed :) The point of that requirement, as we hashed out in Sandbox, was that a page that consists of nothing but walls of text deter readers. Interspersing it with an image or two, or an infobox, breaks up the content into different types of digestible media & provides a better experience to readers.
 * And secondly, not many people can create their own art, me relying heavily on Gravi or others to create it for me in my case. It's like saying 80% of my articles are not high quality not because they aren't well written (which I would say they are), but because they contain no image or because an infobox just doesn't suit the idea.

Hence why Infoboxes can be used instead, & are easily implementable at that. It takes literally two minutes, at most, to put a bare-minimum Infobox on the page. Infoboxes are the primary goal with this, images are a odd-ball alternative if someone does not want to use an Infobox for whatever reason.
 * If I had been told when the Fanon Page Requirements were being created I could have assisted, and my best guess was during the Sandbox, which as I stated above, I couldn't reach. So my apologies. I would still like this requirement either changed or given exceptions.

Totally understandable, want to talk it over in Slack or Discord or what have you? I’m sure we can get a better alternative.