Critique

Probably worth defining "affect" (expression of emotion?) right at the start, or just link "Affect" to a relevant wikipedia page.

Typo in builds on "phycology"

Good use of references/linked articles. You can get a direct wiki link with the [[Course:CPSC522/Some_Page|some text]] notation, to differentiate what's student written vs external.

"(Figure something)"s - remember to change these haha

A saccade is just a rapid eye movement from one spot to another, it's not a measure of the distance between these points: "Another feature specific to the eye tracking domain is called a saccade, or in other words the distance from...". Should distinguish the feature (length) from the action.

Typo on saccades "measure" should be measured, "Fore"->"For", "to go the"->"to go to the", "I"->"In"

Feature "section" (selection)

There's a few other typos etc, basically it needs a proof-read but it's otherwise well written.

Apparently we're supposed to format these like reviews on a couple of papers, I've done the same thing as you but it's probably worth changing things around.

Generally this is pretty solid but it's a practical topic where they did studies, so I think it'd be good to see some results summarized on the page. You could then show e.g. the effective difference between feature fusion and single feature (?) analyses.

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. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 4
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 2
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. NA
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3
• It is correct. 4
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 3 (looks like you're adding more)
• 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. 2 (I think the format is wrong)

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 16