User blog comment:Hockeyben/The new look - one year later/@comment-1091639-20111016152556

I consider Oasis and the features created for it poorly designed. The layout of the skin is much less intuitive and with all the different blocks/adverisments/menus/sections it doesn't look "clean". There are tools and links in the header, in the floating footer and in various buttons scattered around the wiki, making navigation harder to learn. The article content used to be what attracted attention, now it's pretty much everything besides the content that catches the eye. The various features seem all to be designed by different developers and they differ a lot in their functionality and appearance, thus creating an impression of inconsistency. The 660px content area is limiting. Various functionalities have been moved to pop-up boxes, which I always associated with advertising.

However there are advantages. The biggest one I consider the fixed width - I no longer have to think about a user's screen resolution when designing a theme/template and the 1000px width page seems to be a standard nowadays. Too bad we're only allowed to modify 66% of it. Another thing is the freedom of choosing features in Wiki Features/Wikia Labs, which I consider a good way to ensure balance between consistency and diversity among wikis.

All in all, if the content area was wider and the features were designed better, I'd say Oasis could compete with Monaco. Unfortunately the pile of bugs and styling flaws is still too big.

To anyone who would like to see how Monaco looked, here is an image of the Sacred Season 2 Wiki with Monaco on. I learned my first CSS tricks on that skin :).