The article states that Ccommunal online encyclopedias have several important problems that make them worthless than traditional printed encyclopedias. It provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains nothing can be perfect for everything and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that communal online encyclopedias are partially informed and inaccurate in many cases because of lack academic credentials of contributors. But the professor rebuts this point by stating that online encyclopedias are not purely accurate but they can easily correct which are mostly impossible for traditional instantly. In addition, online encyclopedias are more comprehensive than the typical ones.
Second, the article posits that there is a huge opportunity to fabricate and adulterate the original online encyclopedias because of unscrupulous users, vandals or hackers. Anyhow, the professor contends that this can be prevented by taking some necessary steps. He gives two examples of this, using a certain structure of every content to make more authentic and have some special judges for correcting flaws and monitoring the contents.
Final, the reading avers that these encyclopedias frequently focus on trivial and popular topics in-depth which create false impression about important topics. The professor from the lecture opposes this point by saying that space is not the problem for online encyclopedias as like for typical ones. Moreover, the professors added that users and reader will decide which are more popular and important for them. Online encyclopedias create a diversity of information for everyone.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, moreover, second, so, then, in addition, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => 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: 1419.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.81557377049 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95369566131 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610655737705 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => 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: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.8756335354 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.153846154 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7692307692 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.76923076923 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254392852358 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0949185472998 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0743169615732 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161384530977 0.162205337803 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0590427971239 0.0443174109184 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.83 53.8541721854 52% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.9 11.0289183223 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.48 12.2367328918 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.