A few SPer's have commented on this page and don't like that I have sourced most of the information from wikipedia.
My take on it is why reinvent the wheel? The area has a rich history and the article did a nice job of summing it up.
Just looking for some feedback on this if its not up to SP standards and needs to go thats fine.
First, you cite wikipedia (and not a specific link) only after cribbing a few sentences.
Your description of the geology, at my reading, is this:
Geology granite, schist
The Pecambrian is a very long period of time, before about 4.6e8 years ago. Most of the mountain-building in that area was in the Tertiary, less than 2.5e7 years ago; quite a contradiction. I don't know that area, but I seriously doubt all the landforms you show are schist and granite. There are Precambrian rocks at the core of the mountains -- but that doesn't tell you how or when they were incorporated in the current mountains.
If you don't understand something, don't make a garbled and probably incorrect summary; cite a reference where people can go to get more information. What we'd prefer instead is that you read about this area that you love, digest the information, come to understand it, and give us a believable, referenced summary.
Often wikipedia pages on obscure mountains are wrong; e.g. the Frenchman Mt NV page used to claim that the Precambrian rocks were on the summit. You should read the wiki references with a dispassionate eye, do some more web research, digest it until you understand it, and then write the description. A visit to a brick-and-mortar library wouldn't hurt.
There are digestible, easier-to-understand books about AZ geology; you will probably enjoy reading them and sharing the insights that you gleaned.
You can start by looking for a few critical paragraphs here:
http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/lake_plea ... d_Plan.pdf