Talk:Sydney sandstone
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
What this article is missing edit
A map to show where it is on the surface of the earth. How many square kilometers of outcrop are there? How many years ago did it form, is there a finer subdivision than "Triassic"? A micrographic cross section. Where is it quarried now? There should be more description of the grain size, how the beds may vary, what is above and below in the stratigraphic sequence. (there is mention, but not very clear) What is the type location and is there a formal definition? What is the context? eg delta on the east coast of Gondwana with passive oceanic margin.
Does this contain oil or gas, mines, minerals or fossils? Is there a soil analysis showing that nutrients are poorer than elsewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I take your point about the need for more on the geology. I still have quite a bit to do on the changing attitudes to the use of the stone as well as the section about quarrying it but I will add more to the geology where I can. The detailed science is outside my field of expertise. More should be added to that part and maybe someone can do it. There is a link in it already to Sydney basin where it is found. The way that this stone has influenced the character of the city takes the article beyond the strict geology and so I think that the link to Hummelstown brownstone was legitimate. As a reader of the article, I found it helpful. Whiteghost.ink 01:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hummelstown brownstone could be linked if there was a statement in the article about why it is related, as there would be hundreds of building stone types around. I will add some more on detailed geology later! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yellowblock
My comment relates to the mention of 'yellowblock' in the opening. My understanding is that this term was historically restricted to occurrences of uniform stone without evident internal layering or structure, which produced the best quality stone. This was reasonably common in Pyrmont but not elsewhere in Hawkesbury Sandstone land, most of which has the usual fine patchwork of pre- and post-lithification features, plus modern weathering effects. [[[Special:Contributions/60.242.50.195|60.242.50.195]] (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)]
- This may well be true. Do you have a reliable source that could help to explain the distinction? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)