Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Pinatubo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mount Pinatubo

I've spent the last couple of weeks working on this article, about the mountain and its enormous 1991 eruption. I think it is comprehensive now, and looks pretty good, and I think I've covered all the points raised when I put it up for peer review. So, I am now nominating it for featured status. Worldtraveller 15:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but it would be nice to get unit conversions put in before this reaches featured status (although the consistency of always using metric units helps). I've updated the References formatting according to the guidelines at Cite your sources, the reference titles are the links, the author names come first and they are all alphabetized by author. slambo 15:29, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I've put in a lot of unit conversions now. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Another excellent article by Worldtraveller. — mark ✎ 15:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Emsworth will have to look to his laurels if these excellent articles keep coming along. It is fortunate for us that his interests are apparently somewhat different to those of Worldtraveller.

Some minor unit nit-picks (not worth objecting over) could you:

• • wikilink numerical values to appropriate [[1 E...]] articles,
  • use   between values and units, and
  • wikilink the first use of each unit (e.g. ° C in lead, km³, etc)

like this: 10 km³. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • No - that is bad advice. 10 km³ is confusing as hell since 10 looks like a link to year 10 when in fact it is to 1 E9 m³. The MoS says to link like so 10 km³. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Examples --mav 02:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, apologies if that is bad advice. I've certainly seen lots of links like that, and it gets you straight to both important pages, the order of magnitude page and the units page. I suppose the order of magnitude page will link to the units anyway. Shrug. Who creates the MoS anyway... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the comments, ALoan! I'll get on with correcting the style issues. Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Have now linked to various 1_E... articles, made sure of nbsps between values and units, and linked to units. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose—the eruption should be covered in detail in a separate article; the treatment here should be more summarized with greater geographical and general historical information. Everyking 21:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see why this should be the case. Why should the eruption be covered in a separate article to the volcano? Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My objection should be ignored if it is the opinion of those informed on the subject that there is not enough information available to justify two distinct articles. I could not say, but it would seem to me that there ought to be enough. Everyking 07:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • A few representative quotes about pre-1991 Pinatubo may give an idea: An inconspicuous volcano (paper on eruptive history of the volcano); only 200 meters above nearby mountains that largely obscured Mount Pinatubo from view (USGS page); forested, deeply dissected and unimposing (NASA page). I am sure that but for the eruption, no-one outside the local area would have heard of it, and much of the information available about the mountain pre-1991 is only known because of the studies carried out after it became active, so to me it makes most sense to keep it all as one article. Worldtraveller 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Good, but almost all the article is about the most recent eruption. Where is the long human history associated with this volcano? Aren't there local legends and lore about it? What about the geography of it? See Mount St. Helens and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens for an FA examples for this type of article. --mav 02:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Like it says in the article, before the eruption it wasn't well known, it was just another pretty unremarkable big hill in a hilly region covered in dense rainforest. Unlike St Helens it wasn't a well known beauty spot or tourist area. If it hadn't erupted in 1991 I doubt it would be worthy of an encyclopaedia article, so inevitably any article about it will be mostly about the eruption. Worldtraveller 03:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Having looked into this, I think you are right. I'd still like to see a geography section added before I support. --mav 19:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I have adjusted things a bit to emphasise that the volcano was not well known before 1991. Can I just ask what you'd want to see in a geography section? General expansion of the sort of stuff that's in the 'history and geology of the Pinatubo region' section, or something else?
        • Stream systems, primary plant cover type, climate, nearby features, nearby villages/cities, general orientation info about where the volcano is, etc. --mav 17:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Have included more information along these lines. Worldtraveller 17:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I was about to agree with Everyking and Mav, but I definitely see Worldtraveler's point here. If it wasn't worthy of a separate article otherwise then it may not need one now. It would be like asking for a separate article on an actor's career, from the main article just about them. If there is nothing else noteworthy about the person, there is no need for that. - Taxman 14:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Now that I've looked more closely at it. Though I would like to see more references and inline citations. - Taxman 14:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, another triumph for Worldtraveller. Bishonen | Talk 21:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. O
• Support Excellent article! Squash 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - BanyanTree 23:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)