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). 4
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 0
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 4
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 0
• 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. 3
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 4
• 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

• A good page; no real complaints other than a missing abstract.
• Would it be possible to include some code?
• Maybe you can include links to the Recurrent Neural Network page, as well as links to LSTM and GRU.
• Nitpick: You can format the evaluation results' images so that they run horizontal across the page.

Thanks May :)

Will include an abstract and code snippets. Cheers