Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
The issue that critical judgement of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from an expert is a contentious one. Someone can say that the judgement of a neophyte of the field is not valuable because the neophyte does not have complete knowledge of the field. While each side has its strengths and weaknesses, I believe that an expert judgement of a work is not required in all the fields because some fields do not require complete knowledge while evaluating.
First, if a neophyte certifies a work, the judgement might not be entirely correct. As an amateur is not completely aware of the field, he may not consider all the possibilities while judging a particular work which can result in a wrong judgement. For example, if an amateur is reviewing a research work in space science, he may not consider the possibility of assumptions being wrong. Because he does not question the assumptions, he may certify the research as a valid although the assumptions are wrong in the first place. Hence, I think that an expert judgement of a work is the valid one.
On the other hand, someone can argue that even experts make mistakes. Because of the limited time available to evaluate the work or because of the silly mistakes, an expert can be wrong sometimes which can happen one time out of a thousand reviews. For example, if an expert is given a short period of time to evaluate a work, he may not have time to consider all the possibilities and his review can be wrong. However, because of the low probability of experts being wrong, I believe we can not conclude that the judgement given by a neophyte has a higher value than that of a review given by an expert in the field.
Someone can argue that not all the fields require experts to review a work. In the fields which does not require extensive knowledge while evaluating a work, I think a neophyte can assess the work in the field. For example, in a field like weight lifting where the work of confirming whether the weight lifted is an excellent achievement or not can also be done by a neophyte. If a person lifts 200 kgs weight, it is an achievement even if a neophyte can certify it. Hence, I think there are few fields which do not require extensive knowledge of the field while evaluating a work and this evaluation need not come from an expert.
In conclusion, because an expert can consider all the possibilities while evaluating, it would make more sense to get an expert review of a work. However, as there are few fields which does not require an expert knowledge of a field while judging a work, I think that not all fields need an expert judgement of a work.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 181, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'sometimes' is usually put before the verb 'wrong'.
Suggestion: sometimes wrong
...of the silly mistakes, an expert can be wrong sometimes which can happen one time out of a thou...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 293, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... example, if an expert is given a short period of time to evaluate a work, he may not have tim...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, may, so, while, for example, i think, in conclusion, in the first place, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 58.6224719101 72% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2181.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 476.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.58193277311 5.05705443957 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63536415589 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 215.323595506 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.346638655462 0.4932671777 70% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 696.6 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 3.10617977528 354% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7763468711 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.789473684 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0526315789 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47368421053 5.21951772744 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 10.2758426966 19% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.399464625833 0.243740707755 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.169360887002 0.0831039109588 204% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.139882495067 0.0758088955206 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.275392796599 0.150359130593 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114193279159 0.0667264976115 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.58 12.1639044944 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.93 8.38706741573 83% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 100.480337079 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.