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. The idea might sound attractive, but the communal online encyclopedias have several important problems that make them much less valuable than traditional, printed encyclopedias.
First, contributors to a communal online encyclopedia often lack academic credentials, thereby making their contributions partially informed at best and downright inaccurate in many cases. Traditional encyclopedias are written by trained expertswho adhere to standards of academic rigor that nonspecialists cannot really achieve.
Second, even if the original entry in the online encyclopedia is correct, the communal nature of these online encyclopedias gives unscrupulous users and vandals or hackers the opportunity to fabricate, delete, and corrupt information in the encyclopedia. Once changes have been made to the original text, an unsuspecting user cannot tell the entry has been tampered with. None of this is possible with a traditional encyclopedia.
Third, the communal encyclopedias focus too frequently, and in too great a depth, on trivial and popular topics, which creates a false impression of what is important and what is not. A child doing research for a school project may discover that a major historical event receives as much attention in an online encyclopedia as, say, a single long-running television program. The traditional encyclopedia provides a considered view of what topics to include or exclude and contains a sense of proportion that online "democratic" communal encyclopedias do not.
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt ; line-height: 106%" lang="EN-CA"><span class="gerrorsc" id="seid0">Based on</span> the given materials, the <span class="gerrorbc" id="seid1">article</span>, as well as the lecture, <span class="gerrorbc" id="seid2">discuss</span> the Communal <span class="error" id="seid3">encyclopaedias</span> which are online resources similar to traditional printed references. The author states that online encyclopedias are not authentic compared to traditional ones, <span class="gerrorbc" id="seid4">owing to</span> the editorial changes made by users. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas <span class="gerrorgu" id="seid5">to repudiate</span> this claim.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt ; line-height: 106%" lang="EN-CA">Initially, the author says that traditional encyclopedias are written by professionals, while a communal encyclopedia is bereft of accurate specialists. Therefore, they are not trustworthy. However, the lecturer explains that this cannot be true <span class="gerrorsc" id="seid6">owing to the fact that</span> no one can find an entirely accurate and comprehensive encyclopedia, even among traditional one. Moreover, errors in an online encyclopedia can be rectified faster than traditional ones, which take even decades to be corrected. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt ; line-height: 106%" lang="EN-CA">Second, the writer proclaims that hackers and vandals can easily change the contents or delete them in an online encyclopedia, and users cannot distinguish the altered texts. <span class="gerrorbc" id="seid7">Yet</span> again, the speaker underscores that some strategies are preventing online encyclopedias from being changed. One is that crucial facts are in read-only format, which is unchangeable. <span class="gerrorbc" id="seid8">The</span> other is editors who monitor all changes made to articles and eliminate malicious changes. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt ; line-height: 106%" lang="EN-CA">The final point of contention between the reading and <span class="gerrorbc" id="seid9">listening</span> passages is the range of information in online encyclopedias. The author thinks that online resources encompass a plethora of unimportant topics, while traditional one contains more particular topics. On the other hand, the speaker explains that ranging a variety of interest is an excellent benefit of online encyclopedias. Also printed encyclopedias have limited space, so they had to be more specific than online sources, but online sources reflect various topics among, which are scientific facts, events, etc.</span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt ; line-height: 106%" lang="EN-CA"></span></p>
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 567, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ellent benefit of online encyclopedias. Also printed encyclopedias have limited spac...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, well, while, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 2811.0 1373.03311258 205% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 338.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 8.31656804734 5.08290768461 164% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 7.57624028854 2.5805825403 294% => Word_Length_SD is high.
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559171597633 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 779.4 419.366225166 186% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.3 1.55342163355 148% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => 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: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 140.142530996 49.2860985944 284% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 216.230769231 110.228320801 196% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 21.698381199 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.07692307692 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.0909274691756 0.272083759551 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731888805332 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0451819705425 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0935926414629 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0438495467536 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 30.8 13.3589403974 231% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -14.13 53.8541721854 -26% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 5.55761589404 263% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 21.7 11.0289183223 197% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 31.27 12.2367328918 256% => Coleman_liau_index is high.
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.63 8.42419426049 126% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 63.6247240618 192% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 26.0 10.7273730684 242% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 31.0 11.2008830022 277% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.