The author says that communal online encyclopedias are priceless and represents three reasons to support this statement. On the other hand, the professor rebuts these reasons and believes that claiming communal online encyclopedias are worthless is far prejudiced.
First of all, the author states that communal online encyclopedias are partially informed and full of errors. The professor disagrees with this notion, mentioning that it is impossible to find an online or off-line encyclopedia without any errors and indeed it can find errors in printed encyclopedias if references are reviewed comprehensively. Furthermore, mistakes in communal online encyclopedias can be corrected whereas in printed versions they are remained for decades.
Secondly, it is claimed in the article that hackers can write wrong or corrupt information in the online encyclopedias. The professor opposes this hypothesis by saying that there are special formats for crucial information in the online encyclopedias and every users cannot change these formats. Furthermore, a group of professional editors scrutinise all the input information and they will remove any malicious changes of information.
Finally, author mentions that online encyclopedias are trivial or focused deeply on superficial subjects which would attract readers attention while the traditional encyclopedias are more sophisticated. The professor refutes this idea by providing the fact that the printed encyclopedias are judged by a limited number of academic people who their decision may not represent a whole range of audiences. Another factor is space. In printed encyclopedias, writers are limited in space while in online encyclopedias they can write about a great variety of topics. Therefore, the diversity is the main and great advantage of online encyclopedias.
In conclusion, according to the lecture, online encyclopedias are invaluable and misjudge about its usefulness would be far from impartial judgment. Audiences can easily access to a diverse amount of information and editors can easily remove any incorrect or corrupted information.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, while, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1814.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.85161290323 5.08290768461 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2368584865 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541935483871 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 588.6 419.366225166 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.401034627 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.933333333 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.2 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288353982679 0.272083759551 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111636129688 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0763878590228 0.0662205650399 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176255328036 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0816226430042 0.0443174109184 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.8 53.8541721854 48% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.65 12.2367328918 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.62 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 63.6247240618 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.2008830022 152% => 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.