Talk:Mount Redoubt: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:20, 25 March 2009

Mount Redoubt has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 12, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Volcanoes High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Mount Redoubt was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 March 2009.

Wikipedia

Lahars a threat to people in the area?

According to the Article:

"If the lahars had gone much further, they could easily have threatened people in the Cook Inlet area"

I'm just wondering how a lahar entering Cook inlet from the Drift River would endanger anybody in the area. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Steep or Not?

According to the Introduction: "Mount Redoubt is not a particularly steep peak..."

But in the Geology section it says: "The volcano's cone is steep–sided..."

So, is it steep or not? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

That does need to be fixed, although it is not as contradictory as it sounds. In the intro, the implied comparison is supposed to be with all mountains (including non-volcanoes), whereas in the Geology section, I think the comparison is with volcanoes only. I'll try for a fix and see what people think. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caught the 3rd Explosion on WSR-88D

I copied the animated .gif radar loop (Public Domain, Produced by US Gov.) from the NOAA/NWS site of the 3rd, and largest so far explosion, and put it on my blog at http://zaphodb777.dyndns.org/blog/index.php . If appropriate, someone may wish to grab it, and massage it for inclusion in this article.

66.119.62.97 (talk) Zaphod —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks. Fleetflame 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of God?

Should we include the idea now backed by major scientists that this was God's work and a sign of how angry he is at us as a nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.4 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit

Have changed the precision of the volume from -3 to -9. But I suggest that cubic miles and cubic km are more sensible units for mountain volumes. No conversion template for these units. Makewrite (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crude oil storage

Anchorage Daily News "OIl terminal survives flooding sparked by eruption heat" This may be a propos. --Wetman (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name etymology

Does anyone know the origin of the name Redoubt? I'd be curious to know

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 ==Crude oil storage==
 *[http://www.adn.com/volcano/story/735227.html ''Anchorage Daily News'' "OIl terminal survives flooding sparked by eruption heat"] This may be a propos. --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] ([[User talk:Wetman|talk]]) 07:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
+== Name etymology ==
+Does anyone know the origin of the name Redoubt? I'd be curious to know