TPO6-W1
The article criticized the online encyclopedias, that they should[推测】 never be as valuable as traditional printed encyclopedias. However, the professor in the lecture disagree with this opinion, and dispute all the three points raised by the article.
Firstly, the article claims that the communal encyclopedia are not accurate as those printed ones, since the contributors are usually lack of academic credentials. But the professor point out that neither the online encyclopedias nor the traditional ones can be perfectly accurate. More over, comparing to the printed books, the online data is much easier to be corrected. As a result, the online encyclopedias are actually superior than the traditional ones.
Secondly, the article thinks that those online texts are facing the risk of destructive editing. The professor agree with this point, but she explains that the community do have some defensive strategies. For instance, the indisputive facts in the encyclopedia are always present in read-only format that no one can change it. Besides, the community also have some special editers monitoring and maintaining the contents. Thus this is not a critical flaw of online encyclopedias.
Thirdly, the article proposes that the topics of online encyclopedias are too trivial that it only focus on something popular, not something important. The professor refute that the traditional encyclopedia only focus on certain topics is actually a result of their limited space. The online database has almost no storage limit, so they don't need to concern on restricted topics, which makes them able to reflect the exact interest of the general public.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: ']' seems to be missing
...e online encyclopedias, that they should[推测】 never be as valuable as traditional ...
^
Line 3, column 310, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly accurate. More over, comparing to the printed books, the online data is much e...
^^
Line 3, column 435, Rule ID: SUPERIOR_THAN[1]
Message: The adjective superior is normally used with 'to'.
Suggestion: to
...ine encyclopedias are actually superior than the traditional ones. Secondly, the ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 423, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...onitoring and maintaining the contents. Thus this is not a critical flaw of online e...
^^^^
Line 7, column 167, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'refutes'.
Suggestion: refutes
... not something important. The professor refute that the traditional encyclopedia only ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 339, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...se has almost no storage limit, so they dont need to concern on restricted topics, w...
^^^^
Line 7, column 441, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...le to reflect the exact interest of the general public.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, but, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, for instance, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1409.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50390625 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0100919731 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5859375 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 453.6 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.7869572172 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.642857143 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2857142857 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.85714285714 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.