Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopedias, however, is that any Internet user can contribute a new article or make an editorial change in an existing one. As a result, the encyclopedia is authored by the whole community of Internet users.
The reading and the lecturer are both about communal online encyclopedias which author of the reading provide three problems. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She provides three benefits of using communal online encyclopedias.
First of all, the author points out that writers of the communal online encyclopedia are not accredited as a writer of the printed encyclopedia. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that errors made in the online encyclopedia could be made also in the printed encyclopedia. Furthermore, she argues that mistakes in the communal online encyclopedia could be corrected, but in printed one cannot be corrected.
Secondly, the author contends that online encyclopedia can be hacked, and their content can be changed, but on the printed encyclopedia this is not possible. The lecture rebuts this argument. She suggests that special editors can make control of content in the online encyclopedia. Moreover, she says that special software can protect it from hacking.
Finally, the author states that communal online encyclopedia contains a lot of information which is difficult to make differentiation of what is important and what is not important. While in the printed encyclopedia is written just important information. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that traditional encyclopedia is limited with space and most of the information can be founded there. She puts forth the idea that communal online encyclopedia is better because you can find everything what you search for.
In conclusion, the reading and the lecture are both about communal online encyclopedia and their reliability. The professor effectively challenges the claims made in the article.
- Integrated essay 3
- Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopedias, 73
- Summarize the main points in the lecture explain how they cast doubt on the ideas in the reading passage 47
- Pets should be treated like family members. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons to support your opinion. 60
- Summarize the main points in the lecture, and then explain how they cast doubt on the ideas in the reading passage. 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... using communal online encyclopedias. First of all, the author points out that...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t in printed one cannot be corrected. Secondly, the author contends that onlin...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... software can protect it from hacking. Finally, the author states that communal...
^^^^
Line 4, column 186, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” 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.
...is important and what is not important. While in the printed encyclopedia is written ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n find everything what you search for. In conclusion, the reading and the lectu...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1466.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44981412639 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06387818608 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.460966542751 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 461.7 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4787226065 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.2352941176 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8235294118 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58823529412 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.352935886808 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122291192181 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0862220770772 0.0662205650399 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.207495627791 0.162205337803 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0705928002381 0.0443174109184 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.03 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.