Comment There is more than one Troilus and Cressida. Perhaps we should specify "William Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida"? Though it doesn't matter much now - we have nothing of any real quality in the other subscopes - I think it'd be less open to attack through a high-quality Chaucer image. Plus, it adds a search term. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the note that I am not entirely a neutral party, so you may want to treat my vote with less weight that other people's. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed with the more precise scope. For such a scope, it would be nice to have an image of the play on stage but it seems that there's none in Commons. For the same reasons as in this other review, I prefer this engraving to the title page of this 1609 quarto edition. @Adam Cuerden: VI rules say: "neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it)" so your support is plainly valid and will be counted as a full vote. --Myrabella (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a conflict of interest, and needs declared. I also encouraged Fox to try the restoration, and gave him a bit of advice, though he did do all the work, up to my recent minorish edit, which I discussed with him a bit ago, just before this was nominated here, by coincidence (it ran on the En-wiki main page recently). Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
