Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sikhanyiso Dlamini

Sikhanyiso Dlamini

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 14:16:21 (UTC)

Reason: A really fine image of the royalty of an extremely under-represented country.
Articles in which this image appears: Sikhanyiso Dlamini, Culture of Eswatini, and a gallery usage in Eswatini
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty
Creator: Amada44

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 14:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Eye-catching, high-quality, and encyclopedic. I'm curious about something: the caption explains the red feathers in her hair (a mark of royalty) but not the thing she's carrying, which (from its appearance in the rest of the set) appears to be some kind of ceremonial weapon, possibly a mace. Would it be possible to track down an explanation and add it to the caption? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be seen better in File:Princess Swaziland 013.jpg Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support in principle~~ – as an intriguing and engaging human image (Could be cropped a bit on both sides.) However, the person to the subject's left (right side of frame) really must be identified also. – Sca (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a crop at File:Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini-001.jpg but I think it's too tight and cuts off the other princess's face. But I think cropping from the left side only, down to around a 5x4 aspect ratio, could help focus attention on the subject better. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We know the person next to her is another member of the royal family. Probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, given she's the only one of about the right age. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ support, prefer original - please identify the other person in the image. MER-C 10:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MER-C: I mean, it's probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, but I'm not going to be able to provide sources for that other than lists of the Eswatini royalty and identified photographs of her from a few years later. Only royalty is allowed that headdress, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 15:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, several other Wikis use a very tightly cropped version with their Sikhanyiso Dlamini articles. It excludes all but the other person's ear, which obviates the ID issue, although aesthetically it's less interesting. →
– Sca (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could just say "another member of the royal family" in the caption. I think that part is clear enough. Searching Getty Images for Temaswati finds images of her in similar costume from 2004, 2005, and 2007, but unfortunately not 2006, and the 2005 image shows several other young women also wearing the red feathers, so I think we can't just assume that this is Temaswati. There is also another photo from 2006, but without names; she is third in the line after the leader of the dance and then Sikhanyiso, suggesting that she probably is indeed Temaswati, but again there are quite a few others with red feathers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me for saying so, but from a journalistic point of view, saying "another member of" would be laughably tantamount to saying "and someone else, whose name we failed to get." – Sca (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that we do not have documentation for the name. Why do you think it is inappropriate or laughable to say so? Do you think we should try to cover it up or pretend to knowledge that we don't have? Do you think we also need the name of the blurred woman in the left margin or the blurred man on the right? Does our lack of knowledge of these things somehow turn this into a bad photo of Sikhanyiso Dlamini, or of the reed dance? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People shown in FPs should be identified. Otherwise readers will be left asking, "Who's this?" - Sca (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no need for the other person's name. The composition centers on the princess, the other person is incidental to the composition, especially with the blade in front of her face. The article, the EV and the photo all center on the princess. The Alt 1 crop is too tight, the origonal is better, it shows the princess in a group setting, and doesn't cut off her pole awkwardly on the left. Bammesk (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Due to lack of ID for second person in photo. I do so reluctantly, but I can't endorse cavalier disregard for established and logical editorial practice. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed some people about the ID of the person right. How is the etiquette about voting on the own photograph? Amada44 ^{talk to me} 13:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Photographers support, or nominate and support their own photos all the time. MER-C 13:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the ID were found, I'd support. Sca (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt 1 is a bit better. No need for the name of the other person. –Yann (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning towards opposition while the second subject is unidentified. Perhaps it would be worth putting this on hold while it's looked into? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the stated reason as compelling the promotion of an average composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for a few weeks until Amada44 can come back with ID for the second royal in the photograph. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- agree, if possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 17:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - that would be nice. I did not hear back but I'll get that name! Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amada44, just so you know an IP at the Reference Desk has suggested that it may be Princess Tiyandza Dlamini. Just for the record, I support the original conditional on ID. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Put on hold~~ Closure postponed for 2-3 weeks ~~per above~~ to give time for the identification of the second person in the image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[Amended Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)][reply]
- I mean, we are in the situation where if Amada44 supported it, it'd be passing, but it's still better if it is identified. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 06:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ The original. The crop is a bit too tight imho. I am a bit further with the ID of the person right, but not quite there yet. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 11:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the voting period already ended. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: if this nomination is listed as "on hold" (as it is), what do you mean by claiming that there can be no more supports and by striking the support that was added after it was put on hold? Do you intend that we should continue to keep this on hold until the identity issue is resolved but then go back and count only the opinions that were expressed before it went on hold, even though some of the opinions are explicitly based on the missing information that caused the hold? What is the point of putting a nomination into such a "frozen but will automatically fail once it unfreezes" state? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Okay, I may have phrased that poorly. Now fixed. (BTW there are 4 supports and 1 conditional support, so once id is provided it automatically passes.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second person is still not identified, and without that there isn't enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ambrust: it feels weird to ignore a vote that happened while suspended, but still unsuspend it... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, I got an answer. Its Temtsimba Dlamini. Cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I said :).--TMCk (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TracyMcClark: yes! thank you! I pursued that but I found it really hard to say if its really her because of the age difference and that there are not many pictures of her. Sikhanyiso confirmed it so now we know 100% :) Cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 11:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right although her cute nose is quite unique.--TMCk (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work! We need more Eswatini images at FP, so I'm going to have to dig through your photography, Amada. Unless you'd rather? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 16:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]