Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Young muslim woman in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer, India.jpg

File:Young muslim woman in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer, India.jpg

 * Reason:It's a high quality, high resolution portrait of a young muslim girl from the Thar Desert region in India, near the border with Pakistan. It's currently only in the Thar Desert article, but it may have EV in Islam in India as that article seems to focus more on the history and notable Indian Muslims and does not have any photos of Muslims in traditional/local dress. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Thar Desert
 * Creator:User:Paulrudd


 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Used well in the article, good quality.  Jujutacular  T · C 17:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't get me wrong, this is a beautiful shot, the framing is great, and the colors are outstanding, but what does it tell us from an encyclopedic standpoint?  upstate NYer  19:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, this image demonstrates clothing, jewelry, and general appearance (skin color, facial structure, etc.) of someone from this region.  Jujutacular  T · C 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't think there is any real urgency to show that. If those things were discussed in the article... A picture of me wouldn't necessarily be a useful addition to the article on the village in which I live, and, equally, this picture is not automatically a valuable addition to the desert article. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a single person isn't necessarily representative, especially since the human genome project has shown that within-population diversity is generally greater than between-population diversity. In essence, there is a good chance that a native white person from, say, London, could be a likeness in all but skin colour of the lady in this picture. On the other hand, we do have a tradition at FPC of featuring "local people", especially where in traditional dress. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A village isn't really an equivalent to a distinct geographical region though. As PLW mentions, this image may not show a woman of a genetically distinct group, but it would be fair to say that she isn't dressed as a typical Londoner would. I agree that the EV could be improved if we could elaborate on the ethnicity of the region, but as long as it isn't shown to be grossly unrepresentative of local dress/customs (unlikely), I still see it as having good EV. I don't see how it differs from any other ethnic portrait that we've featured. To me, the one thing stopping us from having an equivalent 'American' or 'British' ethnic portrait is the greater diversity/individuality in western countries, which is perhaps only superficial anyway, in the same sense that it's human nature to find it more difficult to differentiate unfamiliar races/animals. That and our inherent bias towards the more interesting and uncommon ethnic groups. To someone from the Thar Desert, a portrait of a modern western teenager/young adult might be just as fascinating. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The mainstream in the "West" has become globalised (say, jeans and T-shirt), but where there is diversity, it is still under the same normative pressures as elsewhere - I could see us featuring a typical goth, emo, indie, furry, or a group of cosplayers if the photographic quality is right. Added to that, we have a whole slew of festivals and occasions with more or less specific dress codes: halloween, wedding, funeral (picture could be posed imo), St. Patrick's Day, carneval in Rio/Venice/Rhineland/etc., Mardi Gras, Burns Night, Beltane, Burning Man, Vienna Opera Ball, etc. Then we have policemen/women, fire fighters and probably another half dozen of commonly encountered uniformed professions. Plenty of reasons for FPs; in spite of that, I would consider representing geographic diversity a priority. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment on EV: I've examined about a dozen photographs of women from the region, and can state the following things: Purple is a popular, but not exclusive, colour choice for the head dress; rich decoration of the ear and neck is typical; when the nose was decorated (all except one old woman - the oldest in my set), it was always on the LHS; actual nose chains were more often seen in older women. Where a religion was given or apparent, women with nose chains were Hindu, not Muslim. In two cases the same women were shown in two or three completely different dresses ("different" here means that not a single piece of clothing or decoration that was visible was shared between two photographs). These dresses varied in the amount of decoration/festiveness, and I would guess they were for occasions of different degrees of formality. Nose chains were more often associated with festive dress and decoration, and the dress shown here almost certainly would not be her most festive. What caught my eye was the half-necklace with the decorated ends - particularly the bundles of green wool with white solid pieces that may be replacements for ivory; I found something similar in only one other picture - it might be a rare variant or very local (although half-necklaces were more common). Not sure that my piece of original research particularly moves anybody; what it does show is that someone just needs to pull the EV out of this - I'm fairly convinced that it's there, and there's probably a book or thesis that describes it (probable category: cultural anthropology). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and it would be fairly interesting. However, without some discussion, we've got nothing EV-wise. I'll see what I can find on Google Books... J Milburn (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A cursory look on Google Books and JSTOR throws up nothing close to relevant. Once something is added to the article, I imagine I'd be happy to support. Until then... J Milburn (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The unconventional composition is not suited for a photo whose EV is mostly in showing her dress. Her necklace is cut off, and it's impossible to see what she's wearing - top plus skirt? sari? salwar kameez? etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Calliopejen1. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Fantastic shot both in terms of composition (does not get in the way of the image being encyclopaedically useful, adds relevant background) as well as technical aspects (good fg/bg separation, nice colors, perfect sharpness). You cannot expect to know every possible dress from one picture, the EV you should take from this photo is the general style an appearance. And last but not least it is a pretty eye-catcher. --Dschwen 16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about seeing "every possible dress" - this shows nearly nothing of her clothing and appearance. Yes, she's wearing a dupatta over her head, like nearly every woman in India. (I guess it is interesting that she is not wearing a niqab, like many Muslim Indian women.) There is a wide range of clothing by region, and this photo gives little to no insight into what she's wearing. Her earrings are too dark to make out well. One necklace is seen. The other necklace is somewhat of a puzzle and appears to be very interesting--I wish we could see more. This image simply does a bad job of illustrating typical dress and appearance, which is what it is in the article to do. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and Dschwen. Really nice shot. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No consensus on EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support Encyclopedic and unique, but as Calliopejen1 indicated-it's impossible to see what she's wearing and it's relevant.--Gilisa (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution Gilisa. However, it is no longer within the voting period so this will not count. Also, you need to place your votes in the correct location, not just at the bottom of the page. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)