Marquardt’s Phi mask has been favorably reviewed by some authors [1,14,16].
Using the ratio of the basion-prosthion length to the basion-nasion length as an index of prognathism, Hanihara  reported that the mean of this index was 94.9 ± 3.45 for Norwegians, 104.1 ± 4.45 for Tanzanians, and 96.6 ± 4.01 for northern Chinese.
Similarly, when the ratio of the simotic subtense to the simotic chord was used as an index of the prominence of the nasals, the result was 52.0 ± 10.20 for Norwegians, 30.3 ± 6.49 for Tanzanians, and 34.8 ± 12.13 for northern Chinese .
Well-separated population means make it difficult to conceive the “ideal” Homo sapiens face.
Even among individuals of European ancestry, the mask outline does not appear to describe a typical man or woman.
Stephen Marquardt has never published the validity of his mask in a peer-reviewed journal though some papers have favorably reviewed it.
Strictly speaking, the criticism in the following article should not be considered definitive since time must be given to Marquardt or others to critique it, and others are more than welcome to try.
Therefore, the masculine element is curious given that a strong preference for facial femininity has been described in the general population.
For instance, in a metaanalysis of the effect of facial femininity on attractiveness ratings, the effect size correlation was = 0.64, with a standard deviation of 0.39 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.51 to 0.74 .
Marquardt claims that his mask applies equally well to attractive individuals across geographic populations. Large as these values are, because a correlation structure underlying shape variation across populations also exists, the face shape differences across continental populations are striking.