online communal encyclopedias
The reading asserts that the online communal encyclopedias have some drawbacks compared to traditional encyclopedias, while the lecturer disagrees with the criticisms.
First, the reading says the online communal encyclopedias’ entries contain so many mistakes as they are authored by nonacademic people and that they do not entitled to strict academic standards. In contrast, the lecturer notes that it is unfair to claim that communal encyclopedias are filled with errors. In her point of view, there are so many mistakes in traditional encyclopedias too, but one of the main advantages of online communal encyclopedias is that the errors can easily and quickly be corrected.
Secondly, the reading posits that the hackers can corrupt the content of online communal encyclopedias’; therefor they are not reliable sources. On the other hand, the lecturer explains that online communal encyclopedias have taken steps to protect their content from hackers’ manipulation. One strategy is that the pages containing the crucial facts are presented in read-only format, which means that users can’t edit them. Next, there are especial editors who monitor all the revisions and eliminate the malicious ones.
Third, the reading states that communal encyclopedias focuses too much on trivial issues and that they devote too much of their content to just popular topics. Consequently they give false impression about which information is important and which is not. On the contrary, the lecturer believes that the traditional encyclopedias have space limitation, and that is why they have to limit their texts. In her opinion not having space limitation is one of the strongest advantages of online communal encyclopedias which enable them to reflect great diversity of public interests.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 160, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Consequently,
...f their content to just popular topics. Consequently they give false impression about which ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, second, secondly, so, third, while, as to, in contrast, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1532.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61172161172 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14857698214 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.0859819672 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.666666667 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.66666666667 7.06452816374 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.473109028055 0.272083759551 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.196976118474 0.0996497079465 198% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136733726663 0.0662205650399 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.330337845211 0.162205337803 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0744968683222 0.0443174109184 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.3589403974 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 53.8541721854 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 12.2367328918 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.