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.
Recently There has been a debate about if communal online encyclopedias are accurate support for people that they can use and trust in it. The author of the reading believes there is enough evidence that online compilations have serious drawbacks making it barely reliable to make a request. The lecturer, on the other hand, point out that there are some severe flaws in the writer’s claim. In fact, the professor believes that online encyclopedias have several advantages, and addresses, in detail, the weakness with each point made in the reading text.
First of all, according to the reading passage states that conventional encyclopedias are verified by qualify people who has authorized credential, instead that find in communal online encyclopedia. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. The professor refutes this argument saying that both cases, communal online and traditional encyclopedias, have errors, but the first one is easier to fix, indeed printed encyclopedias could take years to change errors.
Second, the writer of the reading text claims that the online encyclopedia is vulnerable to hacker attacks. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He explains that kind of malicious attack on those online compilations is controlled by two strategies, first, there are editors that continuously are reviewing and fixing possible changes, and the second strategy is that not possible make changes in it.
Finally, the author brings his arguments to a close by suggesting that the traditional encyclopedia gives a correct view on those topics are included in. The professor, on the other hand, points out these claims saying the traditional encyclopedia has limited space, and they are obligated to decide what they must include or not include in the sheets. While in communal online encyclopedias, this is not an issue, not only adds a wide range of diverse topics, but also this characteristic is the strongest feature which has it.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, so, while, in fact, kind of, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => 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: 1700.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34591194969 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92644827758 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550314465409 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 533.7 419.366225166 127% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2040871137 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.769230769 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4615384615 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.30769230769 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259078180235 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0883609139227 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0657508622275 0.0662205650399 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159545946265 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0465984123815 0.0443174109184 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => 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.