Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Leaning Tower of Pisa SB.jpeg

The Leaning Tower of Pisa
Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015  at 13:40:10 (UTC)
 * Reason:EV (VERY FAMOUS) + HQ
 * Articles in which this image appears:Leaning Tower of Pisa and Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Saffron Blaze


 * Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Well, there's nothing absolutely fantastic about the photo but it does indeed show the tower pretty accurately, including its incredible lean and the EV is good. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support –Jobas (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Someone should check that the tilt has not been exaggerated. According to the article, the angle is now (post-2001) 3.99°. The angle in the picture looks significantly more than that to me. It is absolutely essential that the angle in the picture is accurate, otherwise it loses all encyclopedic value. 86.152.163.222 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I did have a look at the buildings in the background and they do look reasonably straight.. There are inward leans on both sides which is consistent with the camera looking upwards, although having a second look, the left side is leaning stronger than the right, which would exaggerate the lean to the right... And you're right, that lean is wayyyy more than 3.9 degrees. OK I'll strike my support until we can figure it out. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also, just a minor issue but there has been some bad cloning of the wires on the bottom left side of the image. Not sure what has happened but it's not ideal.  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – My view is, the LTP has been photographed so many times that it's become rather a bromide. Exaggerated lean? Donno. A view from three years ago for comparison at lower right. Sca (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The one from 2012 seems to be leaning backwards as well as to the right (at least, I think so... this things are good at being optical illusions), which would actually decrease the perceived lean compared to its actual lean. Could it be that the article itself is wrong about its 3.9 degree lean? Also, you'll have to educate me: what (in this context) is a bromide? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, a cliché – something that's been said (or seen) so many times it's not interesting. If you got someone parachuting off the tower, that would be interesting.
 * Re the degree of lean, I looked up the German WP article (the only other lang. I can read), and it says that up at the top the tower extends out 3.9 meters from vertical, which relative to its height of 55.8 meters means an inclination of about 4 degrees. (This was reduced from 5.5 degrees before restoration work began in 1990, it says.) Sca (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Breaking update. Well, I feel a bit sheepish, but (based on the assumption that the tower doesn't taper inwards, and from the diagrams I've seen, it doesn't) I just measured the lean in the image and it's actually 4.2 degrees on the left side and 3.2 degrees on the right side (I wouldn't expect either side to be exactly the same because of the effects of perspective which narrows the tower towards the top). This basically shows that we're imagining a greater lean than is actually present in the image, and if you average the two measurements, you get 3.7 degrees, which is very close to the 3.99 degrees that the article states. Long story short, we probably should have measured it in the first place instead of trusting our faulty brains! I'll retract my retraction. As for it being a cliché, it certainly is, but IMO that doesn't mean it's not deserving of a FP photo. I think in time we could take a better one (I know I certainly would if I visited), but for now I think it's an interesting and notable image.  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This user does not have "faults" – he has character traits. Sca (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The tower is - more or less - leaning correctly it appears. --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Yann (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – the main article could be better but there is sufficient EV to support this good image's promotion. Plus we've all just had a lesson in how the eye can deceive and it brought back pleasant memories of when I regularly popped over to Milan, Portofino, Lucca and Pisa.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 13:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)