Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount St. Helens

Mount St. Helens
(Uncontested -- July 6) 

I think this is a pretty exceptional article. Well written for the most part and well illustrated. The only involvement is have with this article (other than a few sp. fixes) is the addition of Image:NASAMtStHelensaerial.jpg. All images seem to be properly documented. Has just about everything I'd ever really want to know about Mount St. Helens. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 10:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Complete and deep.  195.167.169.36 11:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. And the separate 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption article seems feature-worthy on its own. Fredrik | talk 11:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know! I was half-tempted to nominate them both!  But I figured one is good enough for now.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 11:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) Could do with a locator map, such as Image:LocMap CarlsbadCaverns.png. 2) The 1980 explosion is in the "Geologic" history section, when it would fit quite well be in the "Human" history section too; would it be best to have this as a separate section entirely? &mdash; Matt 18:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I personally think this is a pretty lousy/petty reason to object.  This is a pretty high-quality article.  Better even than some articles that I've seen passed through here.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 19:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm the person who wrote the pre-1980 geology history and I put the 1980 eruption text in that section since it is about geology. But even though I'm a main author of this article I must admit that some of the human history and later geology should be disentangled - the events as described in the geology section should concentrate on geology while the same events as described in the history section should concentrate on the human aspects. The human history section could also use some basic expansion as well. So I guess I must also object, but I will try to fix the problems sometime soon. Thanks for all the kind words everybody! :) --mav 03:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * OK - I've moved the human history text from the geology section. Changing my vote to accept but the article could use some more images (esp in history section). --mav 06:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written and complete. Second the feature-worthyness of 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption as well. Anárion 08:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1. The article states, "Mount St. Helens was named for British diplomat Alleyne Fitzherbert, whose title was Baron St. Helens." I would recommend something like "Mount St. Helens was named for a British diplomat, Alleyne Fitzherbert, Xth Baron St Helens" or "Mount St. Helens was named for Alleyne Fitzherbert, Xth Baron St Helens, a British diplomat." This removes the reference to the "title" of Baron St. Helens (strictly speaking, peerage dignities form a part of the name of their possessors, unlike, say, Mister). 2. Images need information: are they licensed under the GFDL, or are they public domain, or are they (one hopes not) fair use. (I presume that most, being works of the US Govt, public domain works, but the same must be indicated on the image pages.) Furthermore, the first section seems rather cluttered with images. - - Emsworth 02:57, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK - all fixed. --mav 05:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. &mdash; Matt 23:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)