Talk:London Clay

Copyedit issues

 * 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. Maralia 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed that now - well spotted. GB 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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'? Maralia 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional references/external links should be added.
 * Yes GB 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maralia 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Split proposal for list of fossil species
Hi, it seems that the fossil section is worth its own list article, in the veins of List of fossil species in the La Brea Tar Pits. I propose splitting: a new list article to be generated, titled List of fossil species in the London Clay, largely copy-pasting the section here. This London Clay article should only have the more generic, descriptive paragraphs (from below the section header and below the 'Animals' sub-section header).--Micraboy (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620223911/http://www.michelmersh.co.uk/home to http://www.michelmersh.co.uk/home
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309062932/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2030/Pages%20581-612.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2030/Pages%20581-612.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agricultural soil quality
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)