The+Fertile+Cresent+Discussion+Section

= = The Fertile Cresent

1. Account for the postings (number of revisions, time range from first to last, notation of periods of activity)

There have been 500 total revisions for the Fertile Cresent Wikipedia site. The first revision was on February 18, 2002 on 9:31 p.m. The last revision was today, October 25, 2010 at 8:39 p.m. It was always that the Geography section was changed or the reference section. The climate and vegetation section seemed to be changed the least. It has been viewed 3363 times in 2010.

2. Describe progress or development in the article from the original post to the most recent update The development of the wikipedia about the Fertile Cresent has changed drastically since it was first put up. When it was first posted in 2002, it consisted of only one paragraph that has only 4 lines about the Fertile Cresent and the writer described it in two sentences. First it was described that the region is in the “Middle East” and now the latest version says that it is in “Western Asia.” The newer revision goes into detail about the fertile region of Mesopotamia and its climate in the first paragraph, while the earliest revision explains its geography and its shape more. The latest revision slightly touches on the Fertile Cresent's agricultural settlement while the newer version has a whole section of the climate and vegetation. The oldest version touched on the tribes that arose in this region, and the newest version includes a more detailed but also brief desciption of the diffusion of population in the region. Overtime, more detail was added to the page and it seemed that every 2 years or so, there would be at least one to two paragraphs added with more specific details about the rivers, natural fertility, and its location. It was until the end of 2005 where an image was added to the wikipedia site and much more detail of the fertile cresent was added. Then in 2006, it seemed like there were more pictures of the Euprates river apparent and more reference pages, external links, and “see also” tabs added. Then in 2008, the image of the river was removed and the same image of the Fertile Cresent was used. The tab Geograpy became more visible and it seemed to be more organized. By the mid year of 2009, a new picture was placed which is the one that is visible now to viewers. It was also until 2009 where Climate and Vegetation tab was added and more details and references were part of the site. Then during the past summer, the writers included another tab, “Cosmopolitan diffusion” and more references, external links, and details to each section. The old image of the Fertile Cresent was removed and the currently it is the same image that was used in 2009. 3. Critique the quality of the article in its current state (writing quality and factual information) Currently, I think the wikipedia site about the Fertile Cresent seems straight-forward and clear. It doesn't take too long to read and it has many useful information that could benefit the student, teacher, parent, historians, etc. The only thing I would point out is the location. The Fertile Cresent at the beginning was said to be in the Middle East and now the wikipedia site explains that it is in Western Asia, and when I observed at West Cary Middle School, the 7th grade students learned that the Fertile region of Mesopotamia is in Southeast Asia. It does get a little confusing, and sometimes the teacher would just follow one source instead of researching more about it. The actual writing is professional and self-explanatory. There doesn't seem to be confusion or difficulty understanding the material being presented. The site is broken down into many tabs and each tab has a great explanation of what should be explained. 4. Describe the discussion around the article  The discussion around the article was really interesting to read! The one that caught my eye the most was “The Geography section is a mess.” Although I think that it is clearly organized and stated in a decent manner, but reading what other people had to say was interesting. One person said that the words were to vague and were placed in a bad form. The person said, “it is also factually incorrect......The section seriously needs some reworking.” There were other members who said that they added more information to the site, such as adding more about ecology and biodiversity and there were others who wanted sources to be posted to some of the additions by other members. A small part of the discussion seemed to be inappropriate, such as one person's comment, “There is a catastrophic failure in the wording at the start of this article. Unnatural fertility? What about it is even remotely unnatural. Who ever wrote that needs to be shot” The discussion seemed to be somewhat negative and I haven't read much any positive points throughout the statements. 5. Provide background information on the most active contributors.

The user who is the most active contributor is called "NormanEinsten." His first edit was on December 21, 2005 and he seemed to place this wiki page on his wishlist and stay up to date with it because his last edit was this same day of October 26, 2010 (as to when I checked it today). NormanEinsten is a person who enjoys making geographic articles that benefit from a spatial location. He or she keeps maps in his gallery and images that are not yet uploaded so that person wouldn't lose track of keeping them. He or she said that they keep a close eye to the requested maps and tries their best to help out whenever possible. His or her last statement was that "I'm mostly retired from Wikipedia" but that user still seemed to edit pages up till this day. The persons userpage was last modified on May 31, 2007. = =