Critique

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. 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. 5

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19

Comments:

• Perhaps it'd be better to list what the categories are in the sentence: "C.S. Pierce divided modes of knowledge inference into the three fundamental categories."
• There are a few minor typos such as "Peirce" instead of "Pierce", and "dark_l1_l1" instead of "dark_l1".
• The examples are plenty and detailed, but they're not original or adapted.

Thanks for the advice! Not sure what to do about the examples. The basic use cases explain the problems quite well, which is why did not want to deviate too much from them.