This material addresses the question of the efficacy and accuracy of online encyclopedias. The reading passage suggests that there are significant drawbacks which make those publications less valuable as compared to printed encyclopedias. The lecturer, on the other hand, refutes this information and argues that the criticism about the Internet encyclopedias is subjective.
To begin with, the reading passage highlights that articles in online encyclopedias are created /authored/ by users who lack expertise in the relevant areas, and, therefore, the traditional encyclopedias are more reliable source of information. Meanwhile, the professor casts doubt on this and argues that errors and inaccurate information may be found in the conventional forms of encyclopedias as well; moreover, if the errors in the Internet may be corrected easily, the same is obviously not true as regards the second type of sources.
Additionally, the article posits that almost everyone may incorporate false facts in the online encyclopedias whereas the same is not possible in the case of printed editions. However, the professor advocates a different approach and provides the following details. Namely, she mentions that special measures are taken to limit the possibility of illegal interference with the online encyclopedias: for example, the separate parts of information would be publicized in read only format, e.g.
Finally, the author invites attention to the fact that the principle of proportionality is violated in online encyclopedias since they may provide equal space to phenomena which have various importance. This goes counter to the listening passage, according to which, unlike online versions, printed editions does not take into account the diversity of people's interests inasmuch as academicians decide what and to what extent should be placed within /in/ the objectively limited space of printed encyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 491, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... be publicized in read only format, e.g. Finally, the author invites attention to...
^^^
Line 4, column 213, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...which have various importance. This goes counter to the listening passage, accord...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
e.g., finally, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, well, whereas, while, as regards, for example, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1640.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.73426573427 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15858729118 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.604895104895 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 108.53684588 49.2860985944 220% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 182.222222222 110.228320801 165% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.7777777778 21.698381199 146% => OK
Discourse Markers: 16.1111111111 7.06452816374 228% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.217988281145 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0807960635263 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465984006318 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125537056338 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.036805083359 0.0443174109184 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.4 13.3589403974 160% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 14.63 53.8541721854 27% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 11.0289183223 171% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.55 12.2367328918 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.25 8.42419426049 122% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.