Course talk:CPSC522/Rao Blackwellized Particle Filtering

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 4
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4
• If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

I think the page is well written and has a nice balance of formulas and descriptions. There are only a few minor spelling/grammar issues that I could find, below are the ones I could find

"this method has been shown to be effective in estimating state transitions for a verity of non learner problems"
verity should be variety

"posterior p(x_{0:t} | y_{1:t}, r_{0:t})"
needs math tags

"We want to colour the map grind as we move"
grind should be grid

and as mentioned nose should be noise.

• As May mentioned there are a couple of spelling errors
• Some items such as Kalman filters could be linked
• First person pronoun "we" doesn't sound appropriate for a wiki
• Perhaps the equations are better on their own paragraph rather than in-line
• Define the variables explicitly: T(X); r(t), x(t) (how are they broken down?); etc. for all the equations
• Also, images

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 4
   The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 4
   The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 4
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
   It is correct. 5
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
   It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
   It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

• There are a few minor grammar and spelling mistakes. For example, note that "nose" and "nosey" should be spelled as "noise" and "noisy".
• There is a lack of images/figures but I see that you've indicated that you will add them.
• Perhaps you can include links to the research papers discussed.
• Maybe you can expand on/explain the recession equation more.