Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2015 at 23:27:07 (UTC)
Reason
An excellent image from one of the founders of the impressionist movement (and one of my all-time faves, that I've stood in front of for an hour at a time)
Aesthetically I agree. It is rather unappealing due to murkiness. However, I suppose the only relevant test is whether it is true to the original. Google image search throws up a whole range of differently coloured and differently contrasted renditions of this. I have no idea which is most accurate. An older and ostensibly better version here was replaced by the current one with the dubious explanation "Better clarity". 109.157.10.216 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"True to the original" has rather limited meaning in this context. What we do know is that this copy displays poorly on computer screens, and that's bad, and easy to fix. Samsara01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paintings fade. This image is scanned by the National Gallery, a reputable source, and one we'd expect to know what their own painting looks like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]