Talk:Flesch–Kincaid readability tests
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:ArticleHistory Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box".
Wrong formula!
It seems that the formula stated on this page for calculating the Flesch-Kincaid readability score does not match the formula stated in the source document being quoted!
The quoted source has a plus sign after the first term of the equation, whilst the wiki page has a minus sign after the first term of the equation. Kind regards, SR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Begbie1975 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Should it make sense?
"Cwm fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz." Is presented as a pangram (a sentence with all the letters) but it hardly seems relevant to a discussion of an American English or even generalised English reading score when "cwm" is Welsh and the sentence is just a bunch of convenient words, and that also seems to excluded it from being a heterogram" since both are forms of sentence and sentence communicates something. 188.31.40.73 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed that, as it's unsourced. And yes, it does look like "just a bunch of convenient words". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Example Sentence
This might be stupid but why is the example sentence "The Australian platypus is seemingly a hybrid of a mammal and reptilian creature"? If it is used by one of the references, then I guess that makes sense. But if not, I think changing "reptilian" to "avian" would be good. Again, it's a tiny issue, and if there is a reason for the sentence being written that way, then it has every right to stay that way. Additionally, what was used to count the number of syllables in the sentence? I used multiple sites (such as syllablecount.com wordcount.com syllablecounter.io howmanysyllables.com and syllablecounter.net) and there seem to be two interpretations of "Australian," 3 syllables (Aus-tral-ian) and 4 syllables (Aus-tral-i-an). 136.61.84.2 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)