Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dirt

Dirt [edit]

Used in the article Dirt.

Nominate (self nom) and support - Roger McLassus 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dirt can be so beautiful! Calderwood 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice picture. Especially since it's dirt. Nice dirt :) Sotakeit 21:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Briseis 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Is that dirt, though? It looks like rust. Zafiroblue05 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My immediate reaction, independent of the comment above, was — it's not dirt at all, it's rust. Kinda misleading. Would support the same image under "rust" or "corrosion". deeptrivia (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the previous comment. Isn't rust the more obvious feature on this picture? Call it rust, put it on oxidation and I'll support. Mstroeck 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose it's not really dirt and it's not that illustrative. Broken Segue 02:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture has "rust and dirt" in its filename, and the plate is in fact a bit rusty. But most of what looks like rust because of its colour is in fact dirt, as a closer inspection after the uploading revealed. Roger McLassus 07:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Iron oxide, burnt-in grease, a few dirt particles. Not stunning. --Janke | Talk 09:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt-in grease is dirt since it is a pollutant from outside the object. Roger McLassus 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would not call such a plate anything but dirty - and the picture is great! Kessa Ligerro 10:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks nice, but I don't think that it illustrates the concept of dirt very good. I'd like to have a comparison with a pristine clean surface. The discussion shows that it is not immediately clear from the image what the effects of the dirt are. --Dschwen 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Image has too little visual context, and isn't exceptionally striking, though it is nice.--130.132.146.165 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Not a good representation of dirt. The photo is also not remarkable in any way.Meniscus 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unremarkable, and mostly rust not dirt - Adrian Pingstone 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inappropriate for dirt because it looks like rust and so is misleading. Inappropriate for rust or iron because it's dirt. Iron already has a similarly coloured/themed FP , not that that point is especially relevant ~ Veledan • Talk 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Veledan, looks like rust to me. –Joke 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is nothing special, and it is also not a suitable picture for dirt. Mikeo 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a good illustration of dirt Glaurung 07:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia doesn't have an aritcle called Dirt. We have a disambiguation page (Dirt), but since disambiguation pages exist to direct readers to their desired article, images only distract (this image has thus been removed from Dirt). So this image isn't actually in use anywhere at the moment.--Commander Keane 09:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. enochlau (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This does not represent what people think of when they think of "dirt". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]