Support [edit: version 2] But could we crop it? Maybe just the outside border to keep the text, or maybe everything but the picture for better thumbnail viewing.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteenth century borders aren't mathematically perfect the way twenty-first century ones are. So a slight crop would only enhance the slight imperfections. A tighter crop might work. DurovaCharge! 01:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the current border actually part of the paper, or is that something it's setting on? Also, can the text be darkened slightly? Being near the edge, it seems to have faded more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current border is part of the paper. DurovaCharge! 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping to just the portrait would have more enc for Emerson, but lose the historical context. Can we put the crop (of the courtesy copy, even) in the article but feature this version?--HereToHelp(talk to me) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would support a cropped version which excludes the matte. Kaldari (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop only No reason to keep the white space, makes it harder to see in thumbnail. But could someone add a few pixels to the bottom of the crop? It seems like we've cut into the engraving a tiny bit. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative - I may not be the best person to make smart comments on this type of media but find the image fascinating. I'm referring to the detail of the engraving technique. How could they simulate so perfectly a hand drawing? Strange that no user explained yet the reasons for their supports... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop only. Amazing detail. Great work! Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per this discussion. Many thanks to the reviewers, but the abuse of the closers at this process has become intolerable. DurovaCharge! 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
