Peyton+Manning+Discussion+Section

1. Account for the postings (number of revisions, time range from first to last, notation of periods of activity) 2. Describe progress or development in the article from the original post to the most recent update 3. Critique the quality of the article in its current state (writing quality and factual information) 4. Describe the discussion around the article 5. Provide background information on the most active contributors.

1. Since January 13, 2004, there have been 5,298 intermediate revisions on the wikipedia entry about Peyton Manning, until the most recent on October 21, 2010. Most of the revisions have been considered minor edits.

2. Over time, this page has become increasingly more detailed. It began as a basic page with what I would call "background information" about Peyton Manning. It listed items such as his birth date, college information, and early accomplishments with the Indianapolis Colts. Now, the page is adorned with his accolades as well as a number of statistics--and it is easy to see that he is one of the most 'decorated' quarterbacks to ever play the game of football.Now the article also includes football information dating back to high school. In addition to personal and football information, there is also a section devoted to marketing, as Peyton Manning is one of the most marketed athletes of any sport.

3. Overall, I do not have too much to critique as far as writing quality. The article is very "narrative" in structure, and is very well organized. I have not come across too many grammatical/mechanical/usage errors--most edits seem to have been made by individuals who know how to write. As for the content of the article, it sticks to the facts. Generally speaking, the facts are presented in an objective manner; however, there are some sections that are a bit opinionated. There is actually an argument on the discussion board that the article is not 'neutral' enough--citing that the use of "Peyton" to refer to Peyton Manning is too personal. I tend to disagree as ~95% of the article is straight factual information/statistics. On a side note, I think it is important to mention that Wikipedia considers this article to be a "Good Article," as seen in the top right corner of the webpage. This means that it is considered of good quality--well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, and neutral in viewpoint.

4. The majority of the discussion around the article deals with requests to edit the article. There appear to be a few discrepancies between select individuals as to a few statistics. Other than what I've mentioned, there is not much discussion surrounding the article.

5. One of the most active contributors is Jmfangio. In looking up this user, I found that he has actually been blocked for reincarnating another blocked username. Aside from listing that the user has been blocked, Wikipedia displays no other information about him--it has all been removed. Another active contributor is Durova. I am a little confused as to why she contributes so much based off of her background information. Durova's actual name is Lise Broer. She is a very active contributor across Wikipedia, and most of her contributions deal with digital restoration of archival material. Her name, "Durova," comes from Nadezhda Durova, the first female officer of the Russian army. One final, and probably one of the most active contributors, is Smk42. This individual does not really have anything to say about him/herself, but it he obvious that he/she is a huge football fan. Football statistics are one of two topics on Smk42's page, with the other being a link to a list of 'emo' bands.