User talk:June42/sandbox

ylchen (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Peer review 1 - Media Complementarity Theory (MCT) I think the draft is well-organized and carefully structured -- I can tell the editor spend a lot of efforts on it. Yet you may consider to improve the structure, transition and content.

1. structure:

I think the overview part is oversize. Ideally, overview should briefly introduce the basic concept, theory founders, key elements and typical application -- by saying briefly I mean only 1-2 sentences for each part.

However, the overview I saw in the draft are filled by too many sub-headings. They should be at removed and fit into news sessions parallel with the overview + History & Background: This part should become an parallel section + Theoretical Basis,Assumptions,Research Strategies: these parts should belong to the "theoretical framework" section. + Limitation: I think this part belongs to the "Critique" section. ( And "limitations" is the correct writing?)

2. Transition

I think you did a good job in transiting the headings -- they works well. So I will focus on the transition in the leading section.

One thing I notice is the abbreviation of "Media complementarity theory". It should first present inside parentheses following the full name in the first sentence.

Another thing is topic sentence of the second paragraph:"Using data collected by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press" is irrelevant to the topic, so I think you should just keep the " MCT provides an alternative explanation to relationship between media types" part. In the following sentences, I can see you are trying to make a comparison between MCT and other theory, but the intention is not clearly indicated. Are "media treatment as a 'homogeneous entities' or a 'zero-sum game' part of the “competition-based displacement”? I think you would like to consider putting a transition here to specify.

3. Content

I really look forward the comparison between the MCT and other media theories -- both traditional ones and contemporary ones. I searched some literature and it looks like there are already some researches in the comparison. You mentioned it in the leading section, and it may be perfect if you develop one more section to talk about further details.

CCT peer review 2019
Before I give out any suggestions, I want to say that I am impressed that you started a Wikipedia page from scratch and you are doing great! Seems to me that you have a clear overview of your theory and it only needs some detailed work! I think drawing from more references will definitely improve the reliability of the theory. And since the part about terrorist attacks of September 11 in “history & background” was not finished yet, I could not comment on the relevance. But I did find an article that links 911 and channel complementarity theory (which I feel like it is media complementarity theory per se) together. Here is the link: Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004). Interpersonal communication after 9/11 via telephone and internet: A theory of channel complementarity. New Media & Society, 6(5), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144804047086 It is also suggested by some scholars that social competence will have an influence on the complementary channel/media use, but the structure did not include extension of the theory-or maybe you have added that already, do you think it will fit better in a new section entitled “extensions” or in “critiques” that you have already listed in your structure? Here is the link: Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17, 21–45. doi:10.1080/105846000198495

I think this is a very interesting theory and I am looking forward to seeing the final development! Yuenyeewong (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)