User talk:Csmith22

Hi there, this is kinda jacked!
(Damatucci (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Peer Review
Hey Cassidy!

I enjoyed exploring the Media Richness Theory article and viewing the various revisions you have made within the page. For starters, you added a citation to the Application section which will assists viewers in building credibility within the article. Along with the building credibility, the reader can also easily access the source if they wanted to read further on the theory. You also added some significant internal links within the page. The internal link for ‘new media’ was a great link to add! I also noticed you corrected a major error within the page in reference to richer media being the best choice. Correcting errors such as these are so important when building a strong Wikipedia article. Many viewers could be using these theories to relate to work scenarios or relationships and it is important to have accurate data within the pages. Great job on catching the error!

Overall the set-up of the page looks great, the graphic is very useful when considering the theory. You could always add to the Further Reading section to guide viewers to other areas of work that discuss the theory in depth. Many journal articles exist in describing the theory by using various application examples. The Application section refers to great examples of how this theory applies in the workplace. If you provided a few examples of how this theory applies in other situations other than the workplace that would be helpful. Lastly I would double check and make sure that all of the information provided is cited. I noticed a few sentences in the Theory section that could use a reference. For example in the third paragraph, Daft and Lengel list the four functions of media richness but there is not citation cited.

So far the page looks great! I feel that the page looks very developed and the information is very educational and explanatory. I had trouble trying to find weaknesses on where you could further improve this page. Keep up the great work!

EmilyFuerst (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Peer Review #2
Hi Cassidy! Your page is looking pretty clean, which is great! I'm going to take a cue from your peer review and suggest that you consider developing an "applications" sub-section dedicated to the theory as it applies to the Internet. Have you found any interesting studies that validate (or invalidate) the theory's use for Internet-mediated content? If so, you could also add to the "criticism" section.

Given the primacy of the "theory" section, perhaps you could move it above the "applications" section. Additionally, you could add more hyperlinked wiki pages and references. If possible, you could add an appropriate theory template to your page. Keep up the great work. Very much looking forward to seeing your final product (insofar as anything is final on wikipedia, of course).

Stroud109 (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessing Wikipedia Articles
Hi there, sorry for the slow reply-- I was out of the country for the past 10 days! Let's see, so you have already published your changes, right? You can go to the talk page of the article you improved and leave a request for feedback there, and you might also see if the page is part of a WikiProject (to see if it is, go to the talk page of the article as well and look at the top banners), and if so go to that Wikiproject's page and leave a request for feedback. The process of officially getting a new assessment for the page is different...if that's what you're hoping to go for, I can look into the details for you. But I might leave that until the end of the semester, when a lot of substantive change has happened to the page. Happy editing! :) Sleuthwood (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)