Jr1429

Welcome!

Hello, Jr1429, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Peer review

Hi, Joy,

The article on your theory looks already well-developed; so I have only few things to point out. First, overall, it doesn’t seem to provide enough citations/references as compared to other entries on academic theories. I would suggest adding more in-text citations, particularly to the section “McLuhan's Media History”. Second, it’d be better if you can find and specify who exactly came up with the Assumptions of the theory and the concept of Law of Media. Also, I’d suggest breaking down the Critics part with using some subheadings since it is kind of lengthy and confusing. Finally, it seems that the McLuhan’s famous phrase, "The medium is the message", is explained twice within the article, one time in the section North American and European contexts and a second time in the section The Medium is the Message. I understand they’re both necessary for each section; but I’d suggest checking out if they’re redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac1370 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Joy,

The article needs to have its citations checked and corrected, especially to get rid of the glaring message about that. I thought maybe the section history could have sub sections that can make it easier to navigate. There is a lot of information that is cluttered together, maybe you can organize that. I thought maybe you can write some more about some of the sub sections like 'tribal age' The critics section has a lot of information that can be organized that can help the reader in understand that material better. While adding sections I think it might be interesting if you can find some application of this theory in todays world and talk in detail about that. Saniyachitale (talk) 8:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer review 2

Hi, Joy, it's Aena again.

The article on your theory really has a lot of information! particularly compared to the other ones I looked at for the peer reviews. So, you might want to work on organizing it in a way it can be more comprehensible, readable. More specifically, I’d suggest you consider taking out the first paragraph of Critics and the first sentence in Recent Researches on Media Ecology Theory, which seem redundant. Also, it’d be better if you put more recent information/reference related to the theory. I think these books might be helpful: Lum, Casey Man Kong, ed. 2006. Perspectives on culture and communication: The media ecology tradition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton; and, Carey, James W. 1989. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Hi Joy!

Your pages is very well developed with an abundance of information! I would recommend editing the Conceptualizations section of the page, paying close attention to the citations (or lack there of) in the following subsections; Tribal Age, Literary age, Print Age, and Electronic Age. I would look at the formatting and consistency in capitalization of headings and further research on current applications of Media Ecology. You might be interested in looking at Media Ecology and how it improves early childhood development or multimedia teaching. I found an article that might help, Wenzhi, Wang. "The Principles of Multimedia Instructional Presentation Based on Cognitive Load Theory [J]." Journal Of Distance Education 2 (2009): 008.

Good Luck!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LangCar (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Joy,

I agree with Langford and Aena that you have a lot of information on your page. I agree with Langford that there might be corrections needed for the citations of the subsections of Tribal Age, Literary Age and Electronic Age, also I feel maybe you can write more about these. I think the section on 'Hot vs. Cool media can be developed further by adding real world applications of it. One of the articles that I found interesting is 'Media Ecology: Exploring the Metaphor to Expand the Theory' by Carlos A. Scolari from the Communication Theory journal. It looks at the 'ecological metaphor' in in terms of 'evolution', 'interface' and 'hybridization.' This might help you add more some more information to your page. Also I might be wrong about this but while editing the critique section maybe you can add subsections, it make make the section easier to read for the reader. Another dimension that you can possibly add to the page is a an example of a recent application of the theory.

Saniyachitale (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)SaniyaReply

Hi, Joy! Thank you so much! Your advises are so very helpful! I will do follow that to do some changes! Tianyi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc713 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Media ecology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

power of the form of information." <ref> Postman, Teaching as a Conserving Activity (1979), p. 39)</ref></blockquote>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic