Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopedias, however, is that any Internet user can contribute a new article or make an editorial change in an existing one. As a result, the encyclopedia is authored by the whole community of Internet users.
Both the article and the lecturer discuss the idea of the online encyclopedias. In the author's viewpoint the concept is alluring, while it has several problems. Alternatively, the speaker opposes this view providing certain counter-arguments to the reading part. The details about this inconsistency in the opinions are provided in the following passages.
The first problem mentioned in the article is that these communals are not always academic based. Hence, they are written by users and everyone can add text he or he want. However the lecturer opposes to this point providing the fact that traditional encyclopedias have never been perfectly accurate. Therefore, errors in the online resources can be fixed, while in paper based resources it is not possible.
Second, the author claims that because of the communals are changeable the sinister users can make changes, which is not possible in classic ones. Arguing on this view, the speaker says that online encyclopedias have some self-protecting policies. first, they started to use some crucial facts which are in read-only format. The second strategy is that they have hired expert editors whose work is to monitor changes made to the original text.
Finally, the author states that in the online encyclopedias, because of unlimited space, there are too much information, and users cannot recognise weather they are major facts or not. In turn, the speaker opposes this statement saying that the disadvantage mentioned by the author is actually one the strongest advantages of internet-based encyclopedias.
All at all, it can be noticed that different factors make scientists have suspicions on the claim made. The author, according to the reading passage, believes that resources found on the internet are much less valuable, than traditional ones. Meanwhile, the speaker, by the lecture, have the opposite belief.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 88, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...dea of the online encyclopedias. In the authors viewpoint the concept is alluring, whil...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 167, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'wants'.
Suggestion: wants
...sers and everyone can add text he or he want. However the lecturer opposes to this p...
^^^^
Line 6, column 173, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...nd everyone can add text he or he want. However the lecturer opposes to this point prov...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 249, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...ias have some self-protecting policies. first, they started to use some crucial facts...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, hence, however, if, second, so, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54081632653 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93500364205 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561224489796 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.1506992103 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8235294118 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2941176471 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35294117647 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205095054677 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601412344896 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535064725339 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108869976184 0.162205337803 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0431741128124 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.56 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.