Talk:Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm

Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 26, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 5, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the exhibition of Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm (detail pictured) prompted the comment that "no decent family can hang such sights against their wall"?

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Interpretation

I do not see in the painting the description of the persons under "Composition". For instance, the "child" blowing bubbles looks like a nude woman (with developed breasts). What justifies her description as a child? I do not have access to the source article, but there seems to be a discrepancy somewhere. I assume the article is being paraphrased, but what justification does the article give? Zaslav (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be looking at the wrong figure—the bubble-blower is a young male child, and certainly isn't "a nude woman with developed breasts". (See right—he's immediately between Pleasure and the standing figure in the red liberty cap.) The exact description in the source text is a small rosy-cheeked boy blows bubbles into the air for pleasure and her male companion to catch. ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox was removed for reasons of consistency with other articles in the series. Wouldn't it make more sense to add infoboxes to all the articles? Seems like using the infobox is standard practice (e.g. The Starry Night, The Scream). Sizeofint (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Iridescent Sizeofint (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) I liked it better with your infobox, but be warned: adding an infobox on TFA-day is considered almost a crime by some users, and the wishes of the principal editors are to be respected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using infoboxes has never been standard practice at FA level on visual arts articles (there are some exceptions, but they tend to be on pop-art works with a relatively low level of detail). The information is all in the lead and the image caption so there's no gain in comprehension, and (particularly for highly detailed works like this) it's more important to have the image at a large and easily visible size. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. I usually look at the infoboxes before the lead to get a brief overview without have to parse prose. Size-wise one can adjust the parameter in the infobox so I don't agree that is really an issue. I'm not going to pursue this although I think it is better practice to include the infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only almost a crime? Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a crime by some, but ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent was right to remove the infobox. It looked stupid and conveys no more information that what the lead does. Cassianto ^Talk 19:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is ease of access rather than conveying new information. You evidently like reading through four paragraphs to obtain the information you desire; others do not. The aesthetic appeal of the infoboxes is a subjective judgement. I think they look fine. Sizeofint (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]