Talk:Misquah Hills

Minnesota Mid‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Start‑class Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Age

The first sentence of the Geology section now (14 March 2009) reads that the bedrock "forms the roof of the Duluth Complex, part of the larger Precambrian rock formations of the Canadian Shield, making them among the oldest ranges on earth." Cited is Ojakangas & Matsch, Minnesota's Geology (University of Minnesota Press 1982), p. 15. I think this goes too far. While the hills are on the shield, they are a more recent addition, are they not? I do not see support at Ojakangas & Matsch p. 15 for the assertion that they are among the oldest ranges on earth. In fact I cannot see that the Misquah Hills are even mentioned in the book (they are not in the index), but will continue looking. Kablammo (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused - I was thinking perhaps that they meant that they were one of the oldest topographic highs... but I don't know about that. They certainly don't have the oldest rocks in a mountain range. Yeah - the whole Keweenawan rift system is a young scar on the Canadian Shield, and is often discussed separately from it. Awickert (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did a google books search, no luck. Nothing for Misquah, just general info for Eagle Mountain. I'm removing the statement, though keeping the (good) reference, and moving it to something it actually talks about. Awickert (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the language in the first paragraph. No pride of authorship; revise as you see fit. I'll revisit later (I've caused enough ECs today). Kablammo (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it; sorry about all the ECs as well. Awickert (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock type and age

Putting a link here for reference: See discussion at User_talk:Awickert/Archive_1#Misquah_Hills

size of range

I am confused by some of the statements I've been reading about exactly how large the Misquah hills range is supposed to be. Go to google maps, find lake Misquah, and hit the terrain button, and I can clearly see the range extending seven miles west between lake Winchell and Brule Lake, and I can see it extending about four miles east to Lima Mountain. However, if that's all the larger the Misquah hills are, then that range most certainly does not include the second range you see a little to the south, which goes from about Eagle to Pine Mountains. I'm rather inclined to believe the term originally only meant those peaks north of a line extending east-west from Lake Brule, but has since come to possess a wider currency, though I'm not sure of this. Either way, we have contradictory sources in the article, if on the one hand all the peaks are either 4 miles east and 7 miles west of Lake Misquah, but on the other hand, Eagle Mountain is one of those hills, at more than 7 miles distant. Norstrem (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]