Talk:Marble Canyon (British Columbia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Depth[edit]

In response to the alleged promotional nature of the content, which I don't see, I'll take each line item by item and try and provide the relevant discussion/reference/resources. In the case of this line:

The north wall is over 965m (3150') high above Pavilion Lake and is the southernmost extent of the Marble Range;

...there is no source I know of that has an authoritative depth for the canyon, stated as such; climbing guides may have the height of the North Wall; in the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia that's been officially dubbed "Calcite Peak" (though I'm not sure there's any calcite at all in the local formation...) and the height of the summit there - which is above the top of the North Wall, not the edge of the wall, is given as 1995m (6545') (this summit has no official name and is a side peak of Pavilion Mountain, the summit of which is 10km away with a 470 prom)[1]. The base of the canyon at its highest point, which is in the area of the limestone quarry and the Marble Canyon Indian Reserves/rodeo grounds/rancherie is 850 m (2789 ft).[2] 1995-850 is 1145m = 3,756.56', call it 3757'. So is such a calculation original research or can it be put in the article? ;-| The CME gives the height of the main wall as 800m (2,624.67' call it 2625'),[3] but I don't know if that was taken from BC Parks or a climbing guide, or calculated (by myself, as it happens, when I was a volunteer there) by going over the topos on BC Basemap; I'll check the Marble Canyon Provincial Park BC parks page, it may be from there. Pavilion Lake, which is the lowest of the three lakes in the bottom of the canyon, is 823 m (2700 ft) and is immediately below the North Wall, as opposed to the "pass" which is a ways southeast, though only 27m higher.[4] This makes the summit of the North Wall, speculatively, 1623m (5,324.80' call it 5325')....I'll check that in the Basemap later, if the detail is even available (the newer version of Basemap has horribly reduced detail, esp. re contours..), but the Bivouac/CME mention of 800m is "over 800m" so it doesn't really matter I guess.

As far as the South Wall goes, that's maybe harder to calculate as it's much lower and both Mount Cole and Mount Martley are set back from the lip, but then so is the so-called Calcite Peak; and the canyon awll is higehr nearer the lower Mount Cole than it is near the higher Mount Martley, so it's a otough call; the height of Crown Lake Falls (Icy BC) is sort of a ballpark, but even it doesn't start at the "edge" of the plateau it drops out of (and its creek is in a 10-15' deep canyon cut into that anyway; I know I've been up there). So because it's unictable, really, only an estimate from topo maps can be provided, if that's not original research. BC Parks says nothing about the height of the canyon walls, although it does contain "reviews" of the climbing routes and other features mentioned in the article such as the side canyons etc.Skookum1 (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"brilliant" limestone[edit]

I suspect this phrase is what prompted, mostly, the peacock template; it's not a brag, it's a reference to the nature of the rocks, which glisten at night (especially in moonlight), have a sparkling, refractive quality at dusk, and are, literally, brilliant in the sun; and even have "lustre" on grey days. The clue is in the next sentence:

A collapsed karst formation, the canyon's name comes from the brilliant limestone of its walls. Despite the name, however, the bedrock is microcrystalline limestone (sedimentary rock) rather than marble (metamorphic rock).

There's lots on the geology of this area because of various valuable deposits, cites can be provided; but somewhere out there, though not on the BC Parks site where I thought it might be, is indeed a description of the "brilliant" quality of the canyon's walls, due to their microcrystalline nature. This wasn't a peacock brag, in other words....I'll look around for where I saw the source of that word/phrase in reference to this canyon; it's definitely out there.Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Added section on discovery of Cambrian laggerstatte[edit]

Just a short summary of this important find, rivaling the nearby Burgess Shale.