Talk:2009 Mount Redoubt eruptive activity

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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alaska High‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eruption versus explosion

I received the following reply from the Alaska Volcano Observatory this morning, and have edited the article accordingly. I feel its important to note these distinctions are from volcanologists, and I am not offering ad hoc, layman's interpretations/definition of what an eruption and an explosion are. The reply is in response to a question I posed regarding a series of ash emissions on March 29-30.

"Hi Michael, The volcano is indeed in a state of eruption, as it is emitting low-level (less than 25,000 ft) plumes of steam and ash. The clarification that was made is that we don't see evidence of an EXPLOSION. At that time, there was heightened tremor, however, seismic and infrasound data do not show clear evidence that an explosion occurred and this will not be categorized as an explosive eruption. -Janet" Michaelh2001 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to main article

I think this should be merged back to the main article, Mount Redoubt. I know there will be more information in the future, but neither article is very long. Some of the info is redundant. The section Mount Redoubt#2009 is rather cluttered with the images, and I think it would be better to have these two together. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly. The current eruption and its aftermath deserves its own page. The eruption page has already been rated as of High Importance. It is already as long or longer then the main page and likely to get much longer. Respectfully, moving the page is a bad idea. Michaelh2001 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19,000 verses 6,000 bytes? That is in no way as long or longer than the main article and some is redundant. The importance rating means nothing. Anyone can assign that. So far, this article doesn't have a word about the aftermath of the eruption. I won't push it now as the volcano is still erupting, but if the articles aren't significantly lengthened, it is unnecessary to split the related content. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article has an unusually long reference section, which accounts for much of the extended length. However, the 2009 eruption page is much larger then the sections on any other of the eruptions, which are stubs at best. I agree with you that the photo section was cluttered, so I moved the post-eruption pics to the eruption page and left the pre-eruption pics on the main page. Could you please fill us in on what you feel is redundant? Thanks. Michaelh2001 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility on Wikipedia?

Is there a specific reason the pictures are so large? The first is 325px and the second is 350px. Why can't we just use the thumbs like usual? Fleetflame 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the detail cannot be seen with thumbs. I'll make them a little smaller, but they will have to remain a little larger then normal. Thanks for the feedback. Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as long as there's a legitimate reason for it and not just someone messing up the syntax. :-) Fleetflame 16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.ktva.com/ci_12007111
- In Drift River Terminal Facility on 2011-03-17 16:19:22, 404 Not Found
- In 2009 Mount Redoubt eruptive activity on 2011-06-17 17:59:29, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eruptive Activity Section

It might just be because I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this subject, and I was just clicking around various interests when I even found this article, but that section is, not only rather displeasing to the eye, but it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The ones that say "Ash cloud reached X thousand feet" are fine, but what about the long list of a date and a time with no comment?

Would it be better to list the more significant events, and then perhaps say "<Source> has a full documentation of all events here: <link>"? The only reason I'm not just doing it is only because I have very little knowledge of this subject matter, and am unsure of the significance of all the items in the list.

And on a side note, references 11 and 12 simply go to KTUU's homepage. Is there anything that can be done about that? Jscottcc (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 Mount Redoubt eruptive activity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

This is a B-class article with severe sourcing issues which does not pass #1 of the assessment criteria. The entire section of the Aftermath of 2009 eruptions and prognosis for future activity is unsourced which violates more than one policy/guideline. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]