Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Lane Craig

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

William Lane Craig

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 07:35:06 (UTC)

 
Original – William Lane Craig is an American analytical philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. He has written several books, including Reasonable Faith.
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
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures
Creator
ReasonableFaith.org, Uploaded by User:TMDrew
  • Support as nominator – GamerPro64 07:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose — Ditto, ditto, ditto. Sca (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent portrait, for my money. @Tiptoethrutheminefield: @Sca: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Point of information: Are wide ties & lapels back 'in' among analytical philosophers? Sca (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scare quotes? Are they back in among 'Wikipedians'? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) [reply]
OK, I withdraw the sardonic quote marks. But I still don't like his outfit. Sca (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose nothing featurable here: artificial facial expression. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/William_Lane_Craig&oldid=1090412690"