Talk:London Clay is part 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I question whether it is appropriate to capitalize 'London Clay'.
It the name of a geological formation, and is a proper noun, that is why it is capitalised - its not just the name for any clay that happens to be in London.
After some research I agree that this seems to be the convention. For consistency, the link/reference to "London clay" in "See Also" section of Clay should agree. Maralia01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Likewise, I question the repeated use of an article, as in 'The London Clay'.
It probably needs no article
When defining a term, one does not use the term in the definition, as was done in 'The London Clay consists of a stiff, bluish coloured clay'.
In this case it could be OK even though it may not be adding much information!
While the section 'Fossil fauna and flora' is logical, the section 'Birds' is not. The listed bird info should be moved under 'Fauna and flora' to the paragraph describing animal fossils.
The bird heading was under the fauna heading. The bird fossil is especially significant in its own right, unlike the other fossils.
I see its significance now, and understand its placement within the fauna section - however it still seems out of order, as there is a general fauna statement including mention of birds, then a general flora statement, and then the bird heading. Perhaps change the bird heading to 'unique fossils'? Maralia23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Additional references/external links should be added.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on London Clay. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article currently states that "Due to its impermeability especially when exposed by ploughing, London clay does not make good agricultural soil" with a request for a citation.
I have not yet found a citation that explicilty states this to be true, but I have found a source that does give information about London Clay's suitability for agriculture in the Borough of Basingstoke and Dean: Basingstoke and Dean Landscape Assessment:Main Report - Part 1: Landscape Overview (specifically on page 7). It states that the quality is Grade 3 but did not give a definition of Grade 3. According to the blog of a rural chartered surveyor: What does my Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) actually mean?, Grade 3 is "good to moderate quality agricultural land: Land with moderate limitations which affect the choice of crops, timing and type of cultivation, harvesting or the level of yield." GeoWriter (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
