Talk:Big Cottonwood Canyon

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Mid-importance).

Glaciation[edit]

I can't comment on glaciation perhaps originally carving the canyon, but the current form of the canyon, the classic "v-shape" described by another author, is definitely river caused. The quotation at the beginning may be misleading for this reason, if this was the original meaning of the quote.

Technically there IS a terminal moraine and till pile in Big Cottonwood Canyon where Mineral Fork meets up with the main canyon (Broads Fork and a few others do as well, but Mineral Fork is the most easily observed). Also, some of the ridges between Big Cottonwood Canyon and Little Cottonwood Canyon are formed of glacial tillite (particularly around Mineral Fork, Mount Superior, and Monte Cristo), but these are from a much older period of glaciation than what carved many of the other Wasatch Canyons.

Those details might confuse the text, so it may not be necessary to include them, but the phrasing in the article could be more exact. The article contradicts itself on whether Big Cottonwood has glacial or fluvial origins. Lastly, the second sentence could be split into two after "not to mention," and the grammar needs to be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.76.41 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence Clarification[edit]

This sentence: "Big Cottonwood Canyon is a watershed canyon, therefore pets and other animals are not allowed." is confusing. Canyons are all part of some watershed or another, and the connection between this fact and allowing pets in an area eludes me entirely. The link to "watershed" in the sentence clarifies neither or these two problems; either this sentence should be explained more fully, should be linked to some article that does explain what is going on, or the confusing material should be removed (e.g., just state that pets are not allowed and leave it at that). Paalexan (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the sentence more clear. Since the water from the canyon is used for drinking water, the canyon has banned pets to avoid contamination. --Glennfcowan (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]