Critique
I think the page should be written in form of a paper review/summery. It would be a good idea to add a discussion/evaluation section to the page. Besides, the boundary between two papers is not obvious (I suppose it only consists of one paper). Besides, you can add a section explaining your opinion about the two papers and their contributions. Adding some figures/practical examples would be helpful as well. Besides, It's a little bit short. There's still plenty room to expand the materials.
I 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). 5
- The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4
- The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
- There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 3
- There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. n/a
- It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3
- 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). 4
- It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 4
- 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. 4
- This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4
Based on what is covered in the page: If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it 18.