The reading and the lecture are about communal online encyclopedias, which are unique because they can be revised and edited by anyone in the world. The author of the reading argues that they are less reliable than traditional printed encyclopedias. The professor casts doubt on each of the criticisms made by the author.
To begin with, the author notes that such encyclopedias are edited by individuals without academic credentials. He feels that this means their contributions are sometimes inaccurate or ill-informed. The professor challenges this point. He asserts that even traditional encyclopedias are not perfectly accurate. Moreover, he says that when errors creep into printed books, they remain there for years, unlike in online sources where they can be quickly corrected.
Secondly, the author claims that vandals and hackers have opportunities to include false information in online encyclopedias, or to corrupt and vandalize correct information. He feels that unsuspecting users have no way of detecting when this has occurred. The professor casts doubt on these claims. He draws attention to the fact that the administrators of online encyclopedias have methods of protecting their content. He says that they have special editors who watch all changes and revert those which are obviously malicious.
Finally, the author points out that communal reference works tend to focus on topics which are trivial or unimportant. This can create a false impression of which topics are important and which are not. The lecturer, in contrast, says that because online encyclopedias have unlimited space they are free to cover a wide variety of topics. He argues that just because a considerable number of articles are written about popular topics, we should not assume that academic topics are not being represented.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 251, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...than traditional printed encyclopedias. The professor casts doubt on each of the cr...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 12.0772626932 182% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1547.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44718309859 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95174399308 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552816901408 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.9735958884 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.0 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7058823529 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.23529411765 7.06452816374 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147155353007 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0467017326087 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447777886653 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.095347653054 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0282302923336 0.0443174109184 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => 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: 14.03 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => 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.