Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radkan Tower 2015-01-26.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 14:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I agree, but there's something that's striking me a bit funny about the conic part. Are you seeing anything other than a bit of unsharpness, such as an excess of noise reduction or oversharpening in the upper part of it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Thanks for the links. I've seen contradictory evidence in my own image search. Some photos show the columns as vertical, others as tapered, but I would defer to people who've actually seen this tower in real life. For example, it would be nice if the nominator would address this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I have never seen this tower with my own eyes. I searched a lot on the web, but could not find the answer of your question. And I have no access to libraries either due to COVID restrictions (all libraries are closed where I live). That being said, I found this picture and what Colin said pretty convincing. I think you should not take Amirpashaei's assertions for granted, unless he provides evidence for his claim. The last point I want to mention is that this image was one of the finalists of WLM Iran 2020 (see here) and considering his reactions to the final results and other contenders, I wouldn't trust him. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was searching for an academic article which discusses the dimensions of the tower or its plan. Am I searching for the right thing? Or Maybe I should search for other images just like what Colin did. But how can one understand an image shows the reality or has perspective errors? Sorry for my novicity, as I am not a photographer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment OK, I'm confused. I'll just cross out my vote for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I abstain from voting for the same reason. Indeed this is a pretty photo! But in a straight architectural shot like this one I would expect verticals to be vertical. (This is not necessary, of course, in advanced shots with special perspectives.) If we cannot resolve this question amicably, I cannot evaluate the picture. --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Thanks, I'm convinced, and based on that footage, this shape looks like it's probably pretty accurate. What's more, whatever the imperfections of the photo (mainly the unsharpness and maybe something else going on in parts of the upper part of the tower), this is a really striking, almost surreal-looking image of a seemingly incongruous work of architecture in the middle of a field, with a dramatic sky behind it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Thank you, Colin, for your hint! My phrase “I would expect verticals to be vertical” was about verticals in general, not about the walls of the tower – I already understand that they are not completely vertical, but slightly inclined; see my first comment above. What I wanted to say has been put much better by Ivar and Basile below. While the tower columns are not completely vertical in reality, they are very probably not that slanted as this photo suggests. I refer to the fact that all fence posts are leaning in, and to the detailed discussion by Basile below. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Imo the perspective distortion is there, because the fence posts on both sides are leaning towards the tower. However, that doesn't mean that the tower columns are completely vertical. --Ivar (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Agree The perspective of this picture is clearly wrong because the fence is significantly falling upwards on both sides, left and right. Which means the verticals are not okay, unfortunately. Fixing them on Photoshop gives a very different aspect for this tower, and of course more vertical walls. To be honest, almost completely vertical. More clues suggesting the tower is almost straight vertical :
  1. A model for tourists
  2. Design drawings here or there found on Iranian architecture websites
  3. View from above
  4. View from a distance
  5. "Cylinder building" as they say
Still, there might be a small angle suggested by the drawing at the left on this map (found here).
I would suggest to offer an alternative of this nomination with the fence vertical, giving a more realistic aspect to the tower -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The model and plans may not be accurate. One might make them straight for aesthetic reasons, but I don't think one would make them tapered needlessly. For example see this or p. 10 of this document.
Gonbad Qabus Tower is tapered according to Nightdevil (Iranian architect), but its plan has been drawn straight, most probably for aesthetic reasons. This example shows why we should not rely solely on plans and models created by students, businesspeople or the like. [By the way, this file is an obvious copyvio and should be deleted as soon as the discussion concludes.] File:پلان برج قابوس2.jpg shows the reality of Gonbad Qabus Tower more accurately. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But "Gonbad Qabus Tower" is not the same tower. Currently the picture displays a tilt of about 3,2 degrees at the left and 2,4 at the right, while the reality might be half of that. About 1,5 degrees on both sides, according to the technical documents above. After correcting the inclination of the fence on Photoshop, I find an angle for the tower of just 1,4 degree at the left, and 1,1 degree at the right. That makes sense -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they are different. I'm using an analogy. Gonbad Qabus is one tower, Radkan is another tower. This discussion is about Radkan. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

edit

 

While the previous version had enough votes to be promoted (7 support votes), an alternative version is presented to address all imperfections, thanks to Basile Morin. Pinging all contributors @Gnosis, Colin, Ikan Kekek, Wilfredor, Johann Jaritz, and Aristeas: @Cmao20, Amirpashaei, Iifar, Daniel Case, and Kallerna: 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran