Editing suggestions

Sarah, I’m so sorry—I thought I left a comment on your page early. As went back to leave my second round I found what I’d written out sitting under the header of the discussion. Not in a thread, not where it belonged at all. I don’t know what went wrong. I have had a few headaches with the Wiki glitching out on me, logging me out while writing comments, and loosing comments (+technical learning curve). I didn’t mean to be neglecting your page like this!

This comment is therefore going to be a bit of a long two-in-one with my ‘second round’ of feedback plus some comments from my ‘first round’.

• In my first round, I was going to suggest making the focus of your Wiki clear and explicit in the introduction by stating that you were covering the history of modern Western archives, your time period, and your region. The introduction you have posted now (1) accomplishes that and (2) introduces your subject. I really like how you’ve stated from the beginning that ancient archives—though they can be absolutely understood according to our conception today—look very different.
• Your revised introduction also solved another point I had which was: I found the way you lead your section on Ancient Origins with the argument that archives and writing production have developed hand-in-hand, but then followed up by giving dates of when writing systems were invented by the Maya and in China a bit of a teaser. With a more streamlined and direct focus of your statement in your introduction and throughout your page, the inclusion of the Mayan and Chinese dates now read as informative tidbits that I think you intended them to be. Generally I think you’ve accomplished greater clarity in your first sections and it works well.
• I mentioned in my ‘first round’ that I hoped you were going to go into more detail about record-keeping techniques and materials (I had particularly enjoyed your citation regarding the impression of pictographs onto wet clay). Which you have! With pictures! And details about storage! I think this is fascinating. Hurray.

My ‘second round’ of comments are just suggestions for edits having done a proof-read. As with all edits, entirely up to you if you choose to incorporate them.

• In the Mesopotamia section you mention “limited validity” and “unlimited validity”. I think I know what you’re getting at with these terms, but I find them a little vague. Either a quick explanation or a revision of word choice would solve that.
• In the Egypt section you write, “together to weld the layers together”. May I suggest ‘fuse’ instead of ‘weld’? While welding does mean ‘fusion of parts’ I brings metal welding to my mind first, and causes the sentence to read a bit strange.
• Glad to see you found a way to format block quotes that worked for you.

Again, so sorry, I wish those first comments had gone through so you’d had them when I had intended you to. As it stands, your Wiki has developed into an exhaustive page.

Hi Amy,

The mystery is solved!! I saw your earlier comments and took them into consideration when reworking my page. Because they weren't in a thread, I thought they were the words of the Wiki God. Actually, I thought they might have been the comments of Professor Douglas but this explains so much. I am so glad you like the changes I have made so far.

For the second round of feedback:

• I agree that “limited validity” and “unlimited validity” are odd. They are the terms used by the author I was citing but I think I might replace them with "... retention" (drawing a blank here) and "permanent retention"
• I also like your idea of using fuse instead of weld.

Thanks so much for your comments. Good luck with your assignments!

Not the Wiki Gods, just the Wiki inept. I wish I'd caught that sooner.

Thanks so much for your encouragement and last editing suggestions. Especially the rewording you suggest for introducing the Upward & McKemmish citation. I agree, that's much clearer!