Critique

I think the page is extremely well written and concise (as usual). I only have 2 comments for the page. Firstly, the abstract section felt like an introduction section, while I think separating the sections will force the page to be longer as some ideas will have to be reiterated, you can try writting a small abstract like "This page will explore alternative classifiers for CNNS" and make your current abstract into an introduction.

Secondly, I think the future work section will be better with more concrete ideas of what can be done next.

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. 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. 4.5 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. 5 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19