Talk:Augustine Volcano

Ash plume heights should be measured in units of feet
Ash plume heights should use units of feet because aircraft flight levels use units of feet. It will be easier to compare ash plume heights with aviation flight levels if they use the same units. Since the metric terms are probably of use to geologists, they should be left in as conversions, following the British units, according to the second rule in Manual of Style (dates and numbers) that says use the source units first and the converted values second. RPellessier | Talk 11:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

wording of lead
I'm no geologist, but the wording of the first sentence seems a bit off. "Augustine Volcano is a Lava Dome Complex on Augustine Island " The volcano is the island, there isn't anything more to it. Not sure how else to word it or if there is some scientific reason that it should be worded the way it is now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Augustine Volcano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111105180818/http://www.cnn.com/2005/TEC/science/12/15/augustine.volcano.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2005/TEC/science/12/15/augustine.volcano.ap/index.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Augustine Volcano. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060923160605/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-show_geoid=Y&-tree_id=4001&-_caller=geoselect&-context=dt&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-redoLog=false&-transpose=N&-search_map_config=

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

CNN source removed for 2006 eruption forecast
An older revision of this page included a reference to CNN about a forecast of the 2006 eruption. The page no longer exists on the CNN website and Wayback Machine does not have an intact copy of the page (it only has "page not found" versions). I therefore removed the following in my latest edit to the page:


 * In mid-December 2005 a sulfur dioxide-laden plume of steam, hundreds of small earthquakes and a new coating of ash over its currently snow-clad peak, taken together, suggested that Augustine was building to a new eruption, likely in 2006.

I replaced it with citations from a USGS paper. RedWolf (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Article issues

 * There are dates, and even specific times on some of those dates ("Eruptive activity" section), that is not sourced. As a listed B-class article the criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And you believe those times and dates are "likely to be challenged"? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, It is possible. I looked to see where they came from and mentioned it. My endeavor is not just reading articles that I love to do. A bot started elevating all project classifications to match and I noticed that all one had to do was promote one project and they would all eventually be promoted. This looks good for Wikipedia but if an article does not meet the criteria it should not be promoted.
 * Specific times to the minute are unique and came from somewhere. Please note that it is not just content that is likely to be challenged but also that any "important" material should be cited.


 * Other issues:
 * B-class articles should "reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies". It seemed short since it is the most active volcano in the region (most active volcano of the eastern Aleutian arc), with a long recorded history, and "could" be better sourced. If we are going to go into detail on "some" of the material we should follow that line on all like material where available. The "2005-2006" subsection (2nd paragraph) states: "The volcano erupted on January 11, 2006". An NBC news source gave a specific time of "4:44 a.m." that can be used. The USGS source (chapter 1) has 38 pages with no page number provided in the citation.
 * An important criterion, however, is that "Readers are not left wanting" (#3). The timeline of 1883 was mentioned and there is geological history information for that, the 1935 eruption, and likely others since they are considered major events.
 * Content in the body of the article currently seems geared more toward the "2005-2006" eruption. Although the "official" name is Augustine Volcano it is also known as Mount St. Augustine and the Alaskan official website refers to it as Mount Augustine Volcano. I also found sources that give the Russian name for the volcano. Some important encyclopedic information might also include that the location was named by Captain James Cook on May 26, 1778, which is St. Augustine's day.
 * If the article is in need of expansion then it is questionable if it qualifies for B-class. If I get the time I might see if I can work on it. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)