The reading and the lecture is about the benefits and problems of online encyclopedia, which is in many facets like a traditional encyclopedia, but with difference that any Internet user can contribute to it. Further, the article is mainly about the problems of the online encyclopedia compared to the traditional one. However, the lecturer casts doubts about the claims made in the article. She thinks, that online encyclopedia is superior in every aspect.
First, the author points out that any internet user can write an article without a sufficient academic credential. It is mentioned that traditional encyclopedias were written by trained professionals in their field rather than by some partially informed internet user. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She illustrates, that traditional encyclopedias were nowhere close to perfection. Further, she argues even if a mistake occurs in an online encyclopedia, it is much easier to correct this mistake than in a traditional offline encyclopedia.
Secondly, the author contends that online encyclopedia can be easily vandalized by users or hackers. The article mentions that if a change is taken, it is very difficult for unsuspicious user to find out the mistake. Conversely, the lecturer rebuts this argument. She illustrates that crucial facts in important articles is transformed in a reader-online format by the online encyclopedia providers. Moreover, she mentions that there are special editors with the main task to monitor the changes.
Finally, the author states that the encyclopedia emphasizes only trivial and popular topics. Thus, the article claims that some topics are not highlighted enough and thus has been put in a false comparison. On the other hand, the lecturer praises the diversity of the articles in online encyclopedias. She also declares that the traditional encyclopedias only have limited space and therefore it is not capable to cover a wide range of topics.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...yclopedia is superior in every aspect. First, the author points out that any in...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => 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: 1657.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43278688525 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11252724539 2.5805825403 121% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534426229508 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 3.25607064018 369% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.286474157 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.0555555556 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9444444444 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55555555556 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.26793668122 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0850189207601 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0641944539655 0.0662205650399 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16817069386 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469676503261 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 53.8541721854 71% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => 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.