Critique 2

• 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). 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. 5
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 4
• 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. 4
• 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. 4
• 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: 17

Comment:

Explicitly state which papers you are referring to as paper 1 and paper 2 early in the page (perhaps in the abstract)
I would recommend adding figures from the papers, particularly for MAXQ-OP directed acyclic graph and the performance in the evaluation.
MAXQ-OP section is very pseudo code heavy. It would be nice to have a sentence explaining each function along with the pseudo code itself.