Communal encyclopedia
The reading and the lecturer are both about online and traditional encyclopedias. The author of the reading has three negative ideas about online encyclopedias. On the other hand, the lecturer challenges each one of these ideas. I will explain how she explains how the online encyclopedia is positive.
First, the author notes that online encyclopedias have too many errors. In addition, the reading states that too many people with not credibility are contributing to the internet encyclopedia making this tool highly unreliable. The lecture contradicts these statements. She noted that also on traditional books are errors. Furthermore, these errors will stay in the books for years. Unlike, online encyclopedias that errors are easily corrected.
Second, regarding the online hacking. The lecturers establish that the websites are taking care of these problems by hiring experts that keep the facts hidden in special places in the encyclopedias site, where no hackers can get access to. Moreover, engineers put important facts in only read text, where nobody can edit these vitals information pieces. Unlike, traditional encyclopedias that errors are in for life.
Last, online research books have an advantage over traditional ones. According to the lecturer, space is one thing that online books have a lot of. In addition, the online book's authors can relish themselves on the articles and go deeper into knowledge. However, the traditional encyclopedia, the author had very limited space, more often the books did not really show what the authors intended to illustrate
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'vitals'' or 'vital's'?
Suggestion: vitals'; vital's
... read text, where nobody can edit these vitals information pieces. Unlike, traditional...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, really, regarding, second, so, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => 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: 1341.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 245.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47346938776 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95632099841 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86274669107 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583673469388 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 429.3 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.4384812565 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.5 110.228320801 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.6111111111 21.698381199 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38888888889 7.06452816374 90% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.138313210678 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0497076570884 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659078650309 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0914540957558 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0420250237879 0.0443174109184 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 41.36 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.85 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.