Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
Self nom. Some people mentioned that this article is also featurable when Mount St. Helens was going through the FAC process. So, is it there yet? What else needs to be done to make this one of Wikipedia's best articles? This article has already been on Peer review for a week with no response. --mav 21:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. My only objection would be that imperial units (feet, miles, yards, tons) are used, but as this is a) a US article, and b) all (or at least all I found) also have an SI equivalent in brackets after them (e.g. 185 miles (300 km)) this is not a valid one. Definitely feature-worthy! Anárion 07:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It would be better if the SI units came first, with the Imperial units in brackets, but yes, it's a US topic, so they can get away with it.   &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article. A few suggestions for improvement, though: 1) The lead starts with "is the most significant volcanic eruption to occur in the lower 48 U.S. states". So, what is the most significant eruption in the entire US? Probably a volcano eruption in Hawaii, but could it be mentioned explicitly somewhere? 2) It seems that some terms are wiki-linked several times, such as volcano (also linked from volcanic eruption) and earthquake, or phreatic eruption. This seems unnecessary. (I'll fix this myself if I have time later today) 3) A few terms that are not easily understood are linked to non-existing articles, such as phreatic eruption and cryptodome. Perhaps stubs could be made for these?
 * How about a nice picture of the eruption next to the intro? Everyking 16:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The only nice photo of the eruption itself I could find is already in ==North face slides away== (which ideally should have the set of photos showing the landslide in progress but those are not free photos). How about a before and after photo set instead? As for the duplicate links; those are intentional and should be limited to one link per section when and where it is appropriate (not everybody reads a whole article of this length from start to finish, so links need to be spread around a bit for them). The larger historic eruption was in Alaska but nobody died and little if any damage to property was done due to the volcano's remote location. I'll look up the specifics and add a sentence to the article. I'll also work on creating those stubs. --mav 18:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK - image moved up and Alaska eruption mentioned. --mav
 * Stubs, redirects created. --mav


 * Support. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. Fredrik | talk 11:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, another great article. - Taxman 00:15, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Good coverage of the geology, well written. Worthy of featured status. A quibble, though. I was in California driving north toward Seattle on May 18 and stopped at Portland (where there was only a thin ash layer, mostly already gone, to check all the air filters on the engines and get some face masks -- there were only a few(!) left). On I-5 (about Chehalis or so), there was something like 4 or 5 inches (perhaps 10cm) of ash on everything, including gas pumps (petrol pumps for the Continental), several days after the event. The article implies it all went toward Yakima. Not so. And we worried about the disk drives getting eaten alive by invisible grit, too. Even in Seattle to the North. ww 19:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)