The article claims that traditional encyclopedia is better than online encyclopedia and it gives three reasons of support. However, professor in lecture refutes all the three reasons given in article by stating her contrasting views and providing evidences for each of them.
First, according to article online encyclopedia are inaccurate. But, professor states that even traditional encyclopedia has never been perfectly accurate. According to professor, one can never find an encyclopedia free of all the errors. She states that online encyclopedia are easy to correct. However, in traditional encyclopedia errors will remain for ages.
Second, article posits that in online encyclopedia hackers can easily fabricate the authentic information. The professor refutes this point by throwing light over the strtegies imposed on protecting the contents in online encyclopedia. She gives two strategies that online encyclopedia has adpted to protect its contents. The first one is that crucial information are placed in " Read Only" format so that unscrupulous users cannot change the significant contents. The second strategy is that it has a special set of editors who monitor changes made to the contents. If they find malificent content then they will eliminate it.
Third, the reading claims that unlike in traditional encyclopedia, online encyclopedia has trivial contents which masks the important topics. But, professor says that traditional encyclopedia has limited space. Hence, its editors decide which topic should be printed and they do not pay attention to range of interests of individuals. On the other hand, online encyclopedia has no bound on its storage space. It still contains academic topics. But, along with that it also includes variety of other information. According to professor one of the strongest advantage of online enclyclopedia is its great diversity of interests.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 578, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...o monitor changes made to the contents. If they find malificent content then they ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, second, so, still, then, third, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1627.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66898954704 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02320180892 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557491289199 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.3749906367 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.35 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.35 21.698381199 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.231834437753 0.272083759551 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0869190545689 0.0996497079465 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0765493617151 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155556873901 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341785110359 0.0443174109184 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 40.34 53.8541721854 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.01 12.2367328918 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.