Talk:Flesch–Kincaid readability tests
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Reference This page is referenced by Google Docs' word count function. |
Wrong formula![edit]
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?[edit]
"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)