Neutral Top enc, but would like to see the exposure evened out a bit. It's a bit grainy and oversharpened, too. --Janke | Talk 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge the original nomination was not sharpened or manipulated in any way. The grain and brightness variations appear to be natural; smudging is visible in the darker areas. Per your feedback I've cleaned up a few artifacts and done a minor adjustment layer. DurovaCharge! 10:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Top encyclopedic value trumps minor technical shortcomings. faithless(speak) 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - Great value to Wikipedia --ZeWrestlerTalk 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Difficult to have the authorization to photograph and great historical value --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Showcases his detailed and distinctive drawing style AND his backwards writing (obvious at full resolution). This picture is a definite asset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrExtreme (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Support This is a famous sketch, it deserves a spot on the front page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpgMER-C 09:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)