Critique

The abstract starts with mentioning "visual classification", it is not very clear to me what exactly that means and how different it is from regular classification if at all? I think you could also shorten the abstract to focus more on the main ideas/experiment points, the middle of the abstract sounds like it more belongs to an Introduction section. There are some spaces missing after inserted maths throughout the page. There is a typo of "unforunately" in the Laplacian classifier section. Also "the use of the absolute differeNT in the Laplacian classifier"

After reading the page I am still not sure on the motivation of why we would want to consider alternative classifiers? I guess this got somewhat lost for me amongst the technical details. I would suggest to add an introductions section that takes the details that are covered in the abstract and uses more simple language to hammer down the point in layman terms about the motivation.

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. 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 3 There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. - There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. - It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning. 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. 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