I think the author is correct in the result, but not in the reasoning. The vast majority of M.Sci thesis are not read because they are neither ground-breaking

I think the author is correct in the result, but not in the reasoning. The vast majority of M.Sci thesis are not read because they are neither ground-breaking nor well written. As for ground-breaking, they are only one year projects on average. No one can expect much more from it. The author's main critique is the style of the thesis, but here I think he is incorrect. Research papers need to be concise and precise, and to do that they must use an agreed upon language and style. The proper place for a casual style is in a survey or popular article (re: advertisement). I think another reason that one shouldn't expect their thesis to be read is that a M.Sc thesis is usually the first full publication of the author, while even a PhD thesis is too often the collation of the author's first publications. One simply does't have the practice necessary to write a great paper. Also, it is good to remember that the audience of a thesis the review committee. It is not written as a dialog in the research community as a journal article or conference paper is. Most advisors will not push for style changes or expanded references because at that would engage a larger review.