Talk:London Clay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.	United Kingdom Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.

	Earth sciences Portal 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] 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)