Talk:Gunning fog index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scalability formula[edit]

That can't be right. Suppose you have a writing sample of 100 words, containing 5 sentences and 3 complex words. It would have a fog index of 9.2 by the first formula. Now, suppose you repeat the same passage ten times, getting 1000 words with 50 sentences and 30 complex words. The longer passage would have a fog index of .92 according to the second formula. I think the first formula should be applicable no matter how many words there are in the writing sample. Am I missing something? Gwil 18:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


For example, the word "asparagus" ... Asparagus? Isn't "everybody" a much better example? Abstract


Lao rice production has always been at the mercy of the weather, with bad years being fatalistically accepted along with the good. With rice production accounting for more than 80% of the cultivated land area, and rice consumption accounting for more than 80% of calorie intake in many rural areas, the impact of adverse climatic conditions on the livelihood of the Lao people has always been potentially very serious. In the 40 year period from 1966 to 2006, every year at least part of the country was affected by either drought or floods, or a combination of both. In 1977, severe drought conditions throughout the country reduced the national rice harvest by 40% relative to 1976 (which was a year of deficit), with some southern provinces experiencing a decline of up to 95%. In 1978, a disaster of the reverse order was very serious flooding. In some areas of central and southern Laos, crop losses of the order of 90% were reported; these were the same areas seriously affected by drought in 1977.

The aerobic rice experimental trials, conducted a second year of wet season 2006, was initially followed up the methodology of first year wet season 2005, by screening the suitable lines and eliminating an inappropriate lines. These promising lines were selected from the drought prone screening program to approximately maintain the number treatments.

The trials were carried out RCBD design on two environmental ecosystems conditions: one site is tested in the upland rainfed environment condition and other sites were conducted in the upper toposequence of rainfed lowland areas where water supply is less certain. The experiments have been tested on 24 genotypes for the first season, selected from a 2004 wet season observation nursery, eight of them were traditional varieties selected from upland condition but the remaining were promising lines and using two improved varieties TDK3, TDK7 and two traditional varieties Hom1, Kam11 as comparative checks. They were applied on direct seeding on spacing 20X20 cm between row and hill, by hand, placed in each hill with three to four seeding. The experimental trials were fertilized on 3 tons of organic fertilizer as basal application in combination with the medium rate of the chemical fertilizer 60-30-30 kg N-P2O5-K2O per hectare. The drop dressing application of compound fertilizer (15-15-15, N-P2O5-K2O) was split into three times: first applied 10 days, second – twenty five days and third - on forty five days after direct seeding and the remaining nitrogen rate 33 kg /ha of (46%N) applied at 60 days after direct seeding. Weed control was done two times by hand. The plots was drained after each rainfall but in this year the rainfall distribution came continuously and some sites were flooded and affected to traditional upland rice varieties and some of them were damaged. The measurements included: The plot size (1mX5m) was water free, the soil could be saturated but it was not to be drying. Day flowering was measured at 50% of plan rice flowered, number panicles per hill, plant high, harvest index, yield and other issues occurred in the plot. Grain yield was also measured at 14% of grain moisture content.

A total of sixteen test entries in the second wet season, the performance of four lines: IR55423-0166; B6144F-MR-6-0-0; TDK10021-B-24-19-1-B; TDK10047-2B-6-1-1; recorded a yield in excess of (3 t/ha) three tons per hectare (lines no 2,4,3 and 1) and B6144F-MR-6-0-0 has generally shown significantly superior yield performance of 3.563 kg/ha and had shown constancy in two locations and in the wet season 2007 we have been shown it into demonstration plot on the farmer field cooperators for wide scale. The experimental site conducted in Sanasomboune gave a high yield than which shown in Phonethong because the soil properties in Sanasomboune was more fertile and more keeping soil moisture content. The lowest yielding line (2,342 t/ha) in Champassak site was local check (Kam11) but this variety (V16) was affected by leaf blast on tillering stage in Saythany district, on the other hand Makfai (V12) failed to give a harvestable yield in both sites due to poor germination on the beginning of direct seeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's score[edit] used the formula and Wikipedia has a readability of 23, which is post-graduate level. I think this should be included. Jammie 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Gunning with Flesch[edit]

I deleted a section which listed average Gunning indices for a list of magazines. Someone asked for a cite, and I found the source, but these are not Gunning indices. They are adapted from Rudolf Flesch's readability test, a different (and competing) methodology. Here's a link to Flesch's research and his results for the magazines. [1] Anson2995 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So is it "Gunning-Fog index" or "Gunning fog index"?[edit]

I would have capitalized all three words "Gunning Fog Index". Apparently, "fog" is not a person, so no hyphen. (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And not a proper name, so no caps. Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


"(ex., +13.37%, not simply + 0.1337)" x% is defined as being x/100, so 13.37% = 13.37/100 = 0.1337 Removing this until someone can rewrite it and actually express what they think they did here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Though I have more-important things to do, I'm about edit this logorrheic article to reduce its fog index. Those objecting should contact me directly. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ta-da! Done. (Please hold your applause.) I do this sort of editing quite well (ask Charles Frankston, Bob's brother), and would gladly do it the rest of my life -- if the pay were (very) good. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunning fog index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)