Discussion+section

**US Congress**
1. Account for the postings (number of revisions, time range from first to last, notation of periods of activity)
 * There have literately been thousands of revisions for the US Congress Wikipedia site. It was first created in April of 2001, and the last edit was today at 5:30. Since its creation, this page has been continuously updated, edited and monitored for truthful content. The US Congress ranks 3097 out of every wikipedia page in existence. It is highly trafficked; therefore, constantly monitored.

2. Describe progress or development in the article from the original post to the most recent update
 * The original site upon creation was essentially a skeleton of the site today. There was very little information regarding any detail of the US Congress. Because of its continual development, many citizens have added hundreds of outside links, eternal documents, etc to enhance the sited legitimacy. As mentioned before, the site has been edited over a thousand times, signifying that the page is under tight scrutiny for accuracy and authenticity... however, there has been much debate over the page's content throughout the years. Starting as a general definition, the page has been expanded to include the Congress' history, purpose, past, present, powers, services, sessions and more.

3. Critique the quality of the article in its current state (writing quality and factual information)
 * I believe this article is perfectly usable for the classroom. There are 182 'watchers' for the US Congress page and because of the great number of editors working together for the legitimacy of the page, I believe that students could refer to this website as a tool to learn more about their government.Overall, the writing is adequate, trying mostly to be unbiased and balanced for the public....it is written in a very 'matter-of-fact' manner; however, there does seem to be some slanting for or against congress, depending on which section of the page one is looking at. Its factual information seems to be legitimate, as there are an overwhelming amount of external references that can be verified by the reader. The article used to be a featured article; however, due to a lack of proper references, the page was demoted. (See comments below)

4. Describe the discussion around the article
 * The discussion- as in anything dealing with politics- seems to be very back and forth with its approval or disapproval of the article. Even though I thought the page was well done, commentators seemed to have a general grading of a "B-Class" article, meaning that the article is overall acceptable, but more work is required (better citations, reliable sources, well written, etc). While some commentators feel the article is written with no political slant, others feel as if the scandals and mishaps of congress should have been included to show that the system is far from perfect. Which, after reading the discussion I am a little surprised at as well. The brokenness of the system is a huge piece of American History- which- if not adequately explained, could give the reader an idealistic view of Congress.

5. Provide background information on the most active contributors.
 * Because the US Congress site is so incredibly active, its difficult to tell who is the most active contributors on the site; however, there are several WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Law, District of Columbia, US Congress, Politics, etc that frequent the authenticity of the article. There are also several individual people who contribute, mostly people who are interested in developing the culture and academia of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. They have random hobbies and interests listed on their wiki 'profiles'.