In the reading material, the author states three arguments to support his claim that communal online encyclopedias have a few significant problems in comparison with customary paper base encyclopedias. However, the lecturer rejects those reasons and finds them not convincing at all. She also speaks about the positive aspects of communal online encyclopedias.
First, the article posits that communal online encyclopedias are not written by skillful writers and as a result, they represent fallacious information in many cases. The professor refutes this idea by explaining that even traditional encyclopedias do not lack mistakes. She also says errors remain on the printed information for several decades but in the online form, they can be revised.
Second, the passage claims that online encyclopedias are vulnerable and vandals or hackers can change information available in the online encyclopedia. The lecturer, yet, debunks that by speaking about the formats of the online and finds them not changeable. She also puts this idea forward by saying that there are many editors whom their work is monitoring the changes in the information.
Third, throughout the writer's lens, the communal encyclopedias highlight famous topics and paves the way to do mistake in realizing which topic is important. The lecturer, again, declares that printed encyclopedias have limited space and are not able to reflect all of the interests of the people. According to her, communal encyclopedias cover many topics and this is their advantages.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 23, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...the information. Third, throughout the writers lens, the communal encyclopedias highli...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 262, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...mited space and are not able to reflect all of the interests of the people. According to h...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, third, speaking about, as a result, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1300.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 236.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50847457627 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91947592106 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98366470957 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588983050847 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.4565951967 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.333333333 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281219422067 0.272083759551 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10465088304 0.0996497079465 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0721448749934 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173552119812 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00661013022228 0.0443174109184 15% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.