Salinger+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. The article, //J.D. Salinger//, was first created on October 29th, 2001 and consisted of a few short paragraphs that described a brief biography, family history, personal life and the legal troubles of the author. Since then, the article has been edited roughly 4000 times over the 9 year span. Activity was low between 2001 and 2003, but since 2003 revisions have been steady, with a peak of revisions around the time of Salinger's death in January of 2010.

2. The original post consisted of a few brief paragraphs with information about the author. It was not broken down into labeled subsections, did not consist of pictures, had a few links within the article, but lacked any citation about where the wikipedia contributor found the information posted. In the original article, it discusses Salinger's family life, struggle with fame, resulting reclusive activity, legal troubles, as well as a mentioning of his published works. Since then, the article has grown immensely in content and size. It now consists of photographs, is organized into 16 separated subtopics, includes references, and contains much more information that the first article. It mainly expands on the topics originally discussed in the first article, but it also includes topics such as Salinger's literary influence, writing style, an all inclusive list of his written works, and much more information about his personal/family life. It was also updated to include information about the death of the author in January 2010.

3. In my opinion, the article is of great writing quality. It is written in a way that is easy to understand, organized in a manner that makes navigating for specific information easy, and seems to encompass everything and more than I wanted to know about the author. It has come a long way from its original 4 paragraph blurb entry in that nearly every sentence is linked to an adequate reference. However, Salinger, much like his published works, seems to be a controversial man himself; much of the article kind of goes around this "he said, she said" logic where people that were close to Salinger (his daughter, lovers) have differing accounts of the type of person he was. At times he was portrayed as this peaceful author who just wanted privacy, and then his daughter describes him as controlling in her memoir. Clearly there are more than one side to every story... I liked that the article did contain this contrasting information, so that if readers were interested, they would learn that they could explore different views of Salinger's life through his daughters books and other unofficial biographies. The inclusion of a few old family photos and Salinger's signature was interesting to see too--it gave the article somewhat of a more personal feel. With more than 120 footnotes, and 15 references, the article seems to be accurate and truthful. The sources range from newspaper articles, to personal letters, quotes from the author himself, and biographies. Overall, I think the article was well articulated, detailed, and accurate.

4. Most of the discussion around the article results from either corrections that needed to be made to the article, or disputes over the accuracy of information in the article. Conversations over article clarity go back and forth, argue for reference citation (but politely for the most part) and also includes information that was omitted from the article. However, most of the things people are bringing up that they want added to the article are difficult to find 100% reliable sources for. A lot of it seems to be speculation, rumors, and heresy. People also comment on the order in which the subtopics are arranged, how the article is separated (for ex: "why does his death need its own section?") and made corrections that eased the flow of the words. Some people have even included further Salinger articles that they found interested here on the discussion part.

5. The three most active contributors are:
 * Hobbesy3 with 114 edits, and no additional user information available
 * JayHenry with 72 edits. JayHenry claims that he believes in what Wikipedia is trying to do and is a relatively active user on the site. A recent college grad, Jay seems a bit quirky--he claims that he lives in the "thunderdome" which is actually a link to Manhattan. He also likes to read and likes hippos. His user info section actually had me laughing out loud a few times...especially when his link for "recent college grad" was a link to the "quarter life crisis" article :)
 * RepublicanJacobite with 43 edits is a science fiction author currently living in Indiana. His user info page is much more detailed than JayHenrys, but more serious. Some of his "favorite things" are Bladerunner, Bach, and Salinger. He has won several "barnstars" for his contributions and editing on Wikipedia.