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
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)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
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
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)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
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
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