Support as I did last time, but now it is better.--GoPTCN 15:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Addressed Issues
JJ Harrison's issue of mixing notations.
Blieusong's issue of using sans-serif fonts.
Inconsistencies by using arrows only on 'c'.
Inconsistencies in file_desc and article.
I believe that these issues have been resolved however, the illustration is now even more simpler.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple is better imo. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as before. Sorry Gauravjuvekar and guys but nothing substancial has changed from the last nomination. Yes, it is a correct illustration but lacks the magic or sophistication we should expect from a FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Purpy Pupple's concerns in previous nom. Lacks EV because the image doesn't actually prove anything. It's just a visual aid for the proof, and not a particularly compelling one at that. I certainly wouldn't place it "among Wikipedia's best work." Makeemlighter (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Makeemlighter. --Avenue (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]