Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 09:52:52
Original - for comparison. Note the lines cut off at the bottom of the featured version are intact here.
Info Comparing this to the original, it becomes obvious that some details at the bottom of the image - the line on the right side of the lower left puddle has been cropped through. It's a minor flaw, but so incredibly careless: paintings have been opposed for far less, and it was entirely avoidable with minimum competence and care. At worse, the creation of a small amount of paper could have been used to fix the awkward angle of the cutting of the pages in this particuar copy of the book. As this has not been done, I do not think this can be considered as amongst Wikipedia's best work, and it should be delisted. (Original nomination)
Keep I strongly object to delisting-nominations for images that have recently been promoted. The problems sound minor, why not just fix the problems and nominate the improved version, if it gets promoted then automatically delist this one. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to fix without going back and redoing the restoration, because the restorer foolishly committed to a rotation and crop even in the partial restoration. To accurately match a rotation with certainty is very difficult, far more difficult than redoing such an apparently easy restoration as this one. Redoing it is the only safe option. Furthermore, I kept quiet about these problems during the original nomination only because I was promised this would be fixed, a promise that has clearly been broken. If it could have been fixed easily, it woould have been. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have never voted to keep a delisting candidate before, but here I do. Calling the flaw minor is an understatement. Given the low-quality, low-resolution crap that often gets kept when nominated for delisting, delisting for half a cut-off line would be plain ridiculous. -- JovanCormac08:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Comparing this to the original, it becomes obvious that some details at the bottom of the image - the line on the right side of the lower left puddle has been cropped through. It's a minor flaw, but so incredibly careless: paintings have been opposed for far less, and it was entirely avoidable with minimum competence and care. At worse, the creation of a small amount of paper could have been used to fix the awkward angle of the cutting of the pages in this particuar copy of the book. As this has not been done, I do not think this can be considered as amongst Wikipedia's best work, and it should be delisted. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Why not delist it on Wikipedia then? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep I strongly object to delisting-nominations for images that have recently been promoted. The problems sound minor, why not just fix the problems and nominate the improved version, if it gets promoted then automatically delist this one. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
