User talk:Shoton35mm/Media richness theory

Michelles peer review for (Shoton35mm)
Hi, here is my peer review:)

= Media richness theory =

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -there is no updated reflection in the new content. I understand the focus on one section to make it stronger.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes, I see you have added to the section about emailing. The section is relevant to the topic because the Media Richness Theory is about describing the communications that are used and the ability to reproduce the information sent over. Emailing is a very important part of communicating throughout any field you choose but even more business.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the one article that you have added is from 2019, which is fairly new.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think if you have added more references. I believe you could have added more references to back up your information. For instance, after informing us about “Email do have the capacity to transmit more informational content than other channels such as voicemail”, you could have added a reference informing us of what other chancel allows the capacity to transmit more information and which others do not. The one reference you do use is one that is very repayable.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No, the article does not  deal with any sort of wikipedia’s equality gaps. This topic is very straight to the point and allows the reader to understand the changes of Email communications. Although I do feel when you mentioned “Some individuals favor using email to communicate in cases that involve their child's academic status”, not every person goes to college or attends schooling in general. I would have kept it more neutral.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - For the most part yes, for example when you added “In recent years, as the general population has become more e-mail savvy, the lines have blurred somewhat between face-to-face and e-mail communication” you mentioned “Somewhat” which includes that not everyone or everything but there are people who do only communicate through face to face and email services. There is no right or wrong answer trying to be delivered but you do a great way of giving the facts.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I believe you could have developed more on the topic of junk mail and how people miss their important emails. I would have put an example of how people go about fixing those wave blocks through their day.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -They are all backed up by a reliable secondary source.


 * Are the sources current? - Yes you have articles that go only back to 2019 which is fairly new.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, there is only one source. I would have added maybe 3 different articles and authors.


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is easy to read and understand the meaning behind the words. It's straight to the point and allows me to know how important emailing is in order to communicate.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes it's broken down into sections/general headings ( Email). The whole section only takes part of that topic and nothing more. You do not get lost in the tropics being brought up nor getting the wrong idea.

Overall impressions


 * Reading your article edit on the email section was an amazing add-on, and was very interesting. Looking through your edit, you choose to edit the email section which was very interesting. Our new generation is very interconnected with the modern way of communicating and that is E-mail. I enjoyed your edit to the point and allowed me to learn and take in what it was you're trying to inform me of. I would not agree more about how emailing is the number one software people use to communicate throughout their business and personal lives. There are a lot of spam emails in which we should figure out how to avoid people from gaining information to tap into the email usernames. You use great grammar and section off the paragraphs very well, although I believe you could have added more references to back up your information. For instance, after informing us about “Email do have the capacity to transmit more informational content than other channels such as voicemail”, you could have added a reference informing us of what other chancel allows the capacity to transmit more information and which others do not. The one reference you do use is one that is very repayable. Overall you did a great job. The content was related to the topic of the article and informed the readers of more to understand the final decision.

-Michelle Gonzalez Michgonza123 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shoton35mm/Media_richness_theory/Publicduck_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review
 * My Peer review Publicduck (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)