Nitpick: both instances of the American penchant for punctuation-within-the-quotes in this article demonstrate you shouldn’t be using it: the first is
“black Nazi?”
and the second,
“cherish.”
In the first instance, the question mark was definitely not part of the quoted material, and in the second also likely not. The problem is that this style of citing sources attributes punctuation to the quotee when it is added to fit into the context of the quoter. Compare with the alternative versions:
The “unnamed” nature of it is kinda curious to me as to what would be surprising NOW about the “black NAZI?”
Trump has still not backed away from Robinson, whom he said we should “cherish.”
The “unnamed” nature of it is kinda curious to me as to what would be surprising NOW about the “black NAZI”?
Trump has still not backed away from Robinson, whom he said we should “cherish”.
Not only is the punctuation-outside-the-quotes style more logical and keeps the cited material closer to the source, it also friendlier to the reader; as written in the article, the question mark and the full stop read as though they were not part of the paragraph that the quotes are embedded in.
People argue the the appearance of
blah “foo”. Burp
is uglier then the looks of
blah “foo.” Burp
but I’d challenge that notion. If anything, type designers have so far neglected to think about proper kerning for these situations—you know, kerning, the technique that makes “V” and “A” come closer together in “VA” when done right, and which turns “r” plus “n” into “m” when done the wrong way.
