> I thought it was at least these two side by side:
No. The first of these is my scan of (a detail of) a 1:1 photocopy of the page.
Creighton’s article has a digital image (photograph) of the page, on too small a scale for the fine detail to be seen clearly. The figure is joined by the red dotted line starting at top left to a section of that image — which is, as I say, too small for fine detail to be seen clearly, but actually big enough IMO to raise doubts about what Creighton says, in the mind of anyone who doesn’t take Creighton’s word for it and looks closely.
Just to make this perfectly clear, this is how Creighton presents it:
Post Edited (30-May-14 21:26)