The article disputes about the communal online encyclopedias disadvantages and states that they have less value in contrast to printed encyclopedias because of several issues and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that communal online encyclopedias never has been perfect same as printed ones and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First of all, the reading claims that many of the boundless internet users in which can contribute to editing online encyclopedias have lack of academic credentials and there for traditional encyclopedias are more reliable. The professor refutes this point by saying that both online and offline references have some errors, but the printed version remains for years but, in the other hand, online version revises by many users, and it gives it more credit instead.
Second, the article posits that vandals or hackers have the opportunity of corrupting the information in the encyclopedia and unsuspecting user cant recognize it. However, the professor says that the online encyclopedias have many protection procedures in which they put crucial points untouchable, and no one cant revises them, and another mechanism of protection is that a team of expert editors monitoring the encyclopedia and warranty the credence on it.
Third, the reading says that there is a false impression of wrong and write creates by users with the variety of interests. The professor opposes this point by explaining that the printed encyclopedias have limited space, so authors have to choose what is essential or not in the other hand in the online version we have unlimited space with great variety and diversity of opinions in which gives it the strength instead of weakness.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 145, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... the encyclopedia and unsuspecting user cant recognize it. However, the professor sa...
^^^^
Line 3, column 310, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... crucial points untouchable, and no one cant revises them, and another mechanism of ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, so, third, in contrast, first of all, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1459.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34432234432 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84883736946 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 34.0 21.2450331126 160% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.5954271493 49.2860985944 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 182.375 110.228320801 165% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.125 21.698381199 157% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.125 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
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: 0.280427587306 0.272083759551 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133380330199 0.0996497079465 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.071699128727 0.0662205650399 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183455748758 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722598152027 0.0443174109184 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.8 13.3589403974 156% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.51 53.8541721854 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.7 11.0289183223 160% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 10.498013245 149% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.