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 reading and lecture are both about online encyclopedia. The author of the reading believes that online encyclopedia has many flaws compared to printed encyclopedia. However, the lecturer casts doubts about the claims made in the article, saying that arguments presented are inaccurate compared to facts.
First of all, the author points out that contributors to the website are not experts. The article notes that the details being written are inaccurate and their credentials lacks academic background. The point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that in traditional encyclopedia the details and information are never close to perfection. Furthermore, she argues that any kind of references materials available are not always accurate. In addition, that in online encyclopedia it is easy to correct details.
Secondly, the author contends that in online encyclopedia hackers can easily tapped into information on the web. The article establishes that users are not sure whether the information they read are true or not. However, the lecturer rebuts this argument. She suggests that in online encyclopedia online hackers are easily recognized and alert the computer for accessing the website. Moreover, She elaborates on this by mentioning that read only format are being implemented in sites, so no one can make changes in the article and information found on the internet. Also, editors can monitor changes in the article and can eliminate changes made by hackers.
Finally, the author states that in communal encyclopedia their focus was popular topics which is not important. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that in online encyclopedia there are no problems in limited space issues and there are huge storage of details in the web. She puts forth the idea that online encyclopedia there are variety of articles and great diversity of topics which is at strongest advantage
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 305, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...in the web. She puts forth the idea that online encyclopedia there are variety of...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, moreover, second, secondly, so, in addition, kind of, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1606.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37123745819 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83917926797 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515050167224 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 522.0 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.6917422674 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.2222222222 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6111111111 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => 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: 0.288343092796 0.272083759551 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0893922710951 0.0996497079465 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.076947244804 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171344530901 0.162205337803 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0254468067152 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.