Talk:Ritual view of communication
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
This article was written under the auspices of Wikipedia's Canadian education project. I am the course instructor for the student author. I am challenging, with respect, the tag that the article reads like a personal reflection or essay. The article is meticulously researched and referenced. The author got one of the highest grades in the course. James Carey's concept of ritual communication is one of the major media theories of the 2nd half of the 20th century and had not been previously mentioned in Wikipedia, not even in Carey's bio entry. The student author did an outstanding job of not only explaining Carey's theory but linking ritual communication in media to other forms of ritual communication. I am proud of what she achieved and Wikipedia should be proud of what she has contributed. I would be pleased to discuss this either privately or in this forum with anyone who has questions. Greycounty (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree this generally appears to be well written, and I would think will certainly stay in Wikipedia; but there is more work to do. Firstly, it needs to be wikified, in particular links should be added to other Wikipedia articles (like I added to James Carey's name). Secondly, the lead section is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, and it doesn't appear to do that right now. Also, there appear to be some basic pieces of contextual information that I couldn't find, such as, when was the theory proposed? Finally, it seems to me that the article is currently attempting to justify the theory, and argue in it's favour, rather than neutrally talking about the theory.
- Those are just a few points; I didn't read the article too closely. But broadly speaking, most Wikipedia articles have some kind of clean-up tag on them, so don't worry too much about the tag. Mlm42 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Rich K 12/11/13: Seems generally decent, even though too focused around the seminal contribution of Carey. It's biggest defect is the unbalanced concentration on Twitter and easily going beyond any consideration of the ritual dimension of twitter tweets.
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Ritual view of communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111128042638/http://www.openfile.ca:80/about-openfile to http://www.openfile.ca/about-openfile/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Twitter section edit
Why in God's name is this section so huge - Danwroy (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
WHY IS THIS SECTION EVEN HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.249.153 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)