The reading and the lecture are both regarding communal online encyclopedias. The author of the reading states that the communal online encyclopedias is not better than traditional encyclopedias whereas the lecturer suggests completely opposite. The lecturer casts shadow on the main points mentioned in the reading using three examples.
Preeminently, according to the reading, communal online encyclopedias lack academic credentials. To further elaborate the author states that in many cases the contribution made is downright inaccurate. However, the lecturer disputes this point. He claims that there is never complete accuracy in traditional encyclopedias. In addition to this, he also states that it is easy to correct error in communal online encyclopedias as compared to traditional encyclopedias.
By the same token, the reading states that communal nature of the encyclopedias gives unscrupulous users and vandals or hackers the opportunity to fabricate, delete, and corrupt information in the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes this argument. He asserts that there are various measures taken into account to protect the data. He elucidates that there are several crucial facts in an article which are put into read only mode. Furthermore, he also states that there are special elders who watch all the changes made.
In winding up, the reading contends that due to presence of various topics it is easy to create a false impression of what is important and what is not. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that in online encyclopedia there is no problem regarding to space. Hence, there is information regarding diverse topics which helps in exploring the user's interest. He also states that in traditional encyclopedias there is limited information.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 247, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... lecturer suggests completely opposite. The lecturer casts shadow on the main point...
^^^
Line 7, column 171, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...rtant and what is not. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that in online encyclopedia t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, however, nevertheless, regarding, so, whereas, in addition, in contrast, in many cases, by the same token
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59040590406 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12776722158 2.5805825403 121% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523985239852 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.3321427071 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1176470588 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9411764706 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250794387281 0.272083759551 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0840002452332 0.0996497079465 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854738259927 0.0662205650399 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167320034993 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0379637923438 0.0443174109184 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.33 53.8541721854 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.