Talk:Soil structure

Untitled
I would like information about soil remediation.

References improvements called for
To clarify why there currently is a "refimprove" tag on this page, or the previous "nofootnotes" tag which displayed a message indicating that inline citations were needed, note the article currently includes general disclaimer "This article incorporates text from http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3g.html#60, a public domain work of the United States Government." If it is public domain, it avoids copyright violation issues, but it raises issues of appropriate referencing. Separation of copied text vs. NOR original research assertions or appropriate wikipedia editor-written text is not maintained. For better referencing, it would be appropriate to note what text is copied from the stated source, and, where it is copied material, to put it in quotation marks or block quote formatting, properly crediting actual wording to original source. Perhaps better, reword noncontroversial facts into wikipedia editor wording. There is perhaps some disagreement about what are the appropriate practices here, see current discussion in Talk page with WP:REF. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike you and the rest of the folks at the NRHP project, we at WPSoil don't have a problem with USGovernment tags, and in fact find the tag serves an important purpose. It 's use fully conforms with Wikipedia's style guidelines and I dispute your position to the contrary. It concisely informs the reader as well as the editors. It is particularly important information to convey concisely to the the future editors that we hope to attract to help maintain and improve the article. Dispersing this information into a prolifereation of intext cites is not a workable alternative here. The use of the USGovernment tag in this article is consistent with the approach used within the project, and it will continue. Placing quotes around whole sections would discourage future editing in those sections which goes against the projects purpose, to improve soil-related content. Placing quotes around section headers and unimportant sentence fragments is disruptive, and it is absurd.
 * The existing Harvard referencing style intext citations will be improved over time, and they will be added to. There is an obvious need for this improvement, so the refimprove will stick for bit. Once these references are improved, the refimprove tag will come off, but the USGovernment remains applicable, and it will stay. This is consistent with Wikipedia practice.  Retaining the public domain source tags is legitimate choice available (and in fact encouraged) within Wikipedia. Any perceived need for the separation of copied text from Wikipedia editor-written text is not applicable in the context of this article. I know you will find this aggravating, but I hope you will honor the project's preference in this. --Paleorthid (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures?
Pictures would be nice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.174.154 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unclear calcium comparison
High sodium levels (compared to high calcium levels) cause particles to repel one another when wet, and the associated aggregates to disaggregate and disperse.

Should this be replaced by High sodium levels (relative to calcium levels), High sodium levels (particularly relative to calcium levels), or High sodium levels (in contrast to high calcium levels) ? 178.38.100.65 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)