Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hijab

Hijab edit

Original version

A flyless version edited by Veledan. I've also lifted the level of shadow a smidgen

I nominated this article because right when I saw it I was in a state of "awww" (because I thought that it was really cute); the article it is in is the Hijab article, the person who created the image is Christian Briggs.

Nominate and support. - Richardkselby 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly is this supposed to be illustrating? --Wulf 20:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting hasn't started yet. I'll unstrike when voting is enabled. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot it was new, changed to comment. --Wulf 20:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright, just wanted to be fair to nominator. It illustrates the Hijab. And obviously a fly on the top of her head. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; the top of the hijab is cut off. —Cryptic (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. The top half is cut off... and the fly! Enochlau 14:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I will support the edited version. Enochlau 00:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll support this one. The fly doesn't bother me, and the picture does a great job at letting people know what the hijab is, even if a tiny piece (much less than half) is cropped. Also hijab can be a concept or idea rather than an actual object. It has only adopted this specific meaning recently. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your comments that perhaps it's illustrating an idea rather than an object, but even with that in consideration, the fly is most unfortunate. That is, unless flies are an inalienable part of Iraq, and it is most reasonable for there to be a fly. Enochlau 10:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one has that 'X-factor' as far as I'm concerned. The detail is beautiful, as are the girls' smiles. The composition and cropping may be unusual, but they bring the viewer right into the scene and the overall effect throws a warm and positive light over a cultural subject that is often given short shrift by western commentators. The fly? Well, I wouldn't be sorry to see it photoshopped, but I don't think it detracts from the power of the image at all. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 15:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support - Agree it has the X-factor. Have sympathy with argument that it doesn't necessarily illustrate hijab very well. But could easily be placed in girl (a recent collaboration of the week) or even something like emotion or happiness. --bodnotbod 18:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit I've prepared and uploaded a flyless version in case people prefer it, although personally I still love the original as much as I do my edited version! ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 19:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there is some very real emotion in this picture. But it is probably a better allustration of smile than Hijab; I have added it to the smile article. I slightly prefer the edited version over the original with the fly. Thue | talk 08:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, No 'X factor' in my opinion, hardly contributes a massive amount to hijab. No great photo. --81.154.236.221 22:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support in my personal opinion it is prefect. I am not an artist. I am just a computer user. --Mattwj2002 09:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Supoort Either one is fine with me. Cheers, Christiaan 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special imho.--Deglr6328 17:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Though this is a nice, well-balanced photograph, it fails to illustrate the topic in a particularly unique or striking way. CapeCodEph 20:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the pic but IMO there's a problem regarding NPOV. Ericd 14:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In what sense do you feel it is NPOV? --bodnotbod 15:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For many people the hijab is perceived as a representation of an inferior condition of women. I believe it's not neutral to show a cute little girl smiling. Ericd 17:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you kidding around? Christiaan 22:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - !!! Enochlau 23:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm very serious. But I may have been misunderstood. The picture shows an happy little girl. I think NPOV should lead to illustrate the article with a model that has a neutral expression. Ericd 17:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eric, can you point me to the policy page that has lead you to believe this? Christiaan 10:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just thought it was a good picture I didnt want to get all political! I mean can you put your political views aside and look at it and see that it is a good (and cute) picture?Richardkselby 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want get political but normally a picture isn't featured only because it's a good picture but also because it illustrate well an article. Ericd 21:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a cute picture and all, but this just doesn't effectively illustrate the concept of hijab, which should be the real concern here. Of course I have no problem with her smiling- for not a few people high heels are 'perceived as a representation of an inferior condition of women', should women wearing those not be allowed to smile either? :)--Pharos 02:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A bikini picture was not promoted for that kind of reasons.... Ericd 21:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a photographer I think that is a very good picture. support Kathy1 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The cut off faces are too annoying. --ScottyBoy900Q
support well I auctually like it,Somerandomgirl 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

∞ 04:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Plenty of votes either way, but no consensus. Raven4x4x 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]