Volcano was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
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
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Volcano was copied or moved into Volcanic hazards with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The heading is off topic. I have not added off topic template which was my first reaction as actually what is needed is a complete rewrite as a History of Volcanoes section with references to total misconceptions, before there was a science of volcanology. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the current lead image doesn't show the structure of the volcano very well, not to mention that it doesn't have the best quality. I propose we replace the lead image with a better photo that shows the shape of the volcano, preferably cone-shaped with an eruption column or visible lava. It should have some quality, preferably be a FP, QI, or VI. For example, File:Mayon Volcano eruption at Daraga Church.jpg could be a replacement. ZZZ'S18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Litli-Hrútur 2023Certainly better image. The structure is irrelevant but the lead pictures I agree should be eyecatching and as its hard to have both hot lava and an exceptional eruption column in one, I wonder if two thumbs at top would be better. Another recent good picture gives both the lava and a nice separate cone in background: ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the File:Mayon Volcano eruption at Daraga Church.jpg photo because too much of the volcanic cone is obscured by a pyroclastic flow. In my opinion, the photo would be a good candidate for showing a pyroclastic flow in e.g. the pyroclastic flow article, but not so good for showing the shape of a volcano in the volcano article. I prefer another image of Mayon: File:Mayon 2 Allan Jay Quesada.jpg, which shows the conical shape of the volcano landform, clearly visible dark-coloured lava flows extending from the summit crater down the cones flanks, as well as a plume of gas escaping from the summit crater. From a photography perspective, it is high resolution and well exposed. I agree that more than one photo in the lead section, each showing different features of volcanoes, could work well because it is indeed difficult to show multiple features in a single photo. The table of contents of this article is long, so in the desktop version of the article there is plenty of white space that could be used for photos. I suggest that rather than removing the current Sabancaya photo, it should be kept but with one or a few new photos placed above it. GeoWriter (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible candidate for a lead image is File:Augustine volcano Jan 24 2006 - Cyrus Read.jpg. This photo shows the stereotypical cone shape without obstruction, shows solidified lava flows on the cone flanks, has an active gas plume of steam at its summit (the photo was taken on a relatively quiet day about halfway through a 4-month-long eruption), and has quite good pixel resolution: 3,264 × 2,448 (4.85 MB) (an improvement compared to the current Sabancaya image which is 2,048 × 1,366 (1.52 MB)). GeoWriter (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Augustine volcano for top image. For skins that do not display table of contents white space we have no more than two or three thumbs. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the proposed image. The only problem I have with it is that it has blown highlights. It is certainly not the best image, but it will do. ZZZ'S15:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only participants unanimously support your proposed image, despite the blown highlights, I'll go ahead and replace the image. If anyone changes their mind or has a better image, address it here instead of replacing. ZZZ'S22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. PianoDan (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Active worlds in the Solar System has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 10 § Active worlds in the Solar System until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ZZZ'S 14:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
