Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014  at 07:35:06 (UTC)
 * Reason:A high quality, high resolution photo of the subject in the picture. EV is also there for it too.
 * Articles in which this image appears:William Lane Craig
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures
 * Creator:ReasonableFaith.org, Uploaded by User:TMDrew


 * Support as nominator – GamerPro64  07:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd really like to support this, but it looks awful at full size. Has it been upsized at some point? J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The good news is that 1500px on the small side is more or less fine. (Uploading now). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is nothing distinctive in the image - (double-breasted blazer aside) it is just a typical carefully-posed force-smiled corporate-style portrait photograph. It might be the best available such corporate-style image of the person who is the subject of the BLP article, but I don't think something just so specific is meant by "is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" guideline for featured picture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Ditto, ditto, ditto. Sca (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. An excellent portrait, for my money.  Craig is an academic; unlike sportspeople and singers, academics don't so much "perform" or have a uniform. Even compared to other academics, philosophers are "unrecognisable"- he can't be pictured in his lab, or on a dig, or interviewing someone. He's a philosopher, pictured at a table (philosophers sit around tables- honestly, that's what a typical philosophy conference looks like). He's a philosopher of religion, photographed in a church. He's a philosopher of time, photographed with his watch carefully angled towards the camera. As far as metaphysicians go, this is pretty damn close to an action-shot. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, every perfect portrait photograph of every person covered in a blp article is suitable for FP. I would say that for FP success there has to be something individually distinctive about the nominated portrait photo. Something that makes it, as a commercial portrait photograph, rise well above the level of the rest of all the other commercially perfect portrait photos. This photo does not have that: it is just a typical photo of its genre, nothing more. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "By your reasoning, every perfect portrait photograph of every person covered in a blp article is suitable for FP." Well, no, that doesn't follow from what I said, but I think I may be more open to that line of reasoning than you are. Let's try this: What would you be looking for in an FP of Craig? Or do you think that some topics are inherently unsuited to FPs? J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Giving this photo a FP status would be like giving a photograph of a rose (or a cabbage) FP status not because it is the best photograph possible of a rose or cabbage anywhere, but because it is the best photograph possible of a rose or cabbage growing in William Lane Craig's garden. Something that specific is not what FP is for, I hold. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I do not follow. Let me ask again: What would you be looking for in an FP of Craig? Or do you consider some topics (EG, "William Lane Craig") inherently unsuited to FPC? J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Indeed, an excellent portrait. If only they'd donated the actual size JPG, rather than something that had been blown up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Point of information: Are wide ties & lapels back 'in' among analytical philosophers? Sca (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Scare quotes? Are they back in among 'Wikipedians'? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that less scary, J? Sca (talk)
 * I don't really know why you want to use scarequotes at all. I can assure you that Craig is a philosopher- no scarequotes are required. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I withdraw the sardonic quote marks. But I still don't like his outfit. Sca (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all I was looking for- you're certainly welcome to object to his choice of clothes if that's how you feel! J Milburn (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there is received wisdom that philosophers are bad dressers. Make of that what you will. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Literary critics too. The first time my wife met my (full professor) teacher, she mistook him for a 60-something homeless man. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Why not. I know also about the conference look, even if my choice of tie would have been less colorful, but what can we do. Minor issue. Hafspajen (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The photo is clear, especially the face, which is important. The stained-glass window in the background is perfect; it gives a clue to Craig's work but is not too obtrusive. My first reaction to the photo was that the smile was forced and artificial, but upon studying the photo a little further, I changed my mind. I think, while perhaps brought forth for the photographer, his smile is genuine and reflects his real personality and character. CorinneSD (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing featurable here: artificial facial expression. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is only a 62.5% support, which isn't enough for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)