Talk:Soil texture

message: This page could be improved if it included references to the other texture triangles available, e.g. EU or FAO.128.240.229.3 09:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Let me know if I've missed anything or just plain done something horrible.  It just seems as if all the information should be present on one page.  Also, per the comment above, it might be helpful to add other countries' classifications and diagrams.  I know there are some images that might do the trick if you want to view the history of the classification article, but I'm not sure how to fit them in here. Jason Patton (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Soil texture classification]] 

message: Content Evaluation
	The material present is well organized and understandable, the information is broken down into subgroups that flow well.  The only organizational change may be moving the field assessment section after the soil texture classification so that readers can understand different types of texture before how to classify.  The article partially covers the topic, the information that is present is useful and important.  The main part that is missing is the different methods that can be used to determine soil texture as well as the pros and cons to each method.  I believe a section about environmental relevance of soil texture would be useful and maybe a map that shows the different soil textures across the U.S..  The evidence present is good quality, there are several tables and figures that provide useful information.  The sections present in the article are well done and provide a good starting knowledge of the topic.  The article has several references listed, it seems to be well researched (no assumptions made), but only one reference is from the last 20 years.  The formatting of the references is inconsistent and although there are 11 references listed only three are cited in the article, with each only being cited once.  In conclusion to improve the article content, a few sections regarding methods and importance should be added, additional figures added, cleaning up the reference list, and adding a few more recent references.  
	
Quality Evaluation
	The article has a solid introduction that provides a background on the topic.  It is understandable but some of the topics brought up in the discussion does not appear later on in the article (good information, I feel an additional environmental section should be added).  The introduction could be expanded to better summarize the article’s key points.  There are a few headings (four headings) but no subheadings.  The only thing missing are some sections (methods, environmental) that I feel would be useful to better explain the topic.  The figures and tables are placed well, they line up with the corresponding text.  There aren’t any appendices or footnotes, but the references are found at the end of the article.  The coverage is neutral, I did not feel that there was any biases present.  The facts are emphasized and backed up with evidences.  The references seem reliable, they all come from books, peer reviewed journals, or the United States Department of Agriculture.  
JenH64 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating Wikipedia

message: I will be editing this Wikipedia page for my writing class today, afterwards I will post the changes I made.  Thanks!
JenH64 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Wikipedia

message: मृदा के कण आकार का निर्धारण 157.34.59.164 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic farming  

message: मृदा के कण आकार का निर्धारण 157.34.59.164 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic farming  

message: मृदा के कण आकार का निर्धारण 157.34.59.164 (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic farming