Critiques and Suggestions

Hi Yu Yan,

Nice draft! However, from my standpoint, you can still improve this page :

1. I suggest you to proofread the page, I’ve noticed some minor grammatical mistakes (e.g., “environment pollution”, “User Knowledge and Expertise that requiring manual analysis by the user” , etc.
2. Regarding the first paper, nothing has been mentioned about the conducted experiment and the outcome(s), I got the impression that you just used that to describe what DDS is all about, which is good, but If I’m not mistaken the goal was to present it in a way that students can understand the paper without reading the original one. Adding a short summary of the experiment, the design and the outcomes would help a lot.
3. The main goal of each paper is better to be more clearly stated at the beginning of each one’s section as well (Found them only in Abstract).
4. Abstract can be expanded a bit more, it’s too concise
5. I suggest you to consolidate the reference style in “References” section. (e.g., the third one)

All above matters aside, it was a nice and a right to the point draft and I enjoyed reading it.

Good job,

Yaashaar

Hi Yaashaar,

Thanks for your suggestion. I made the follow modifications based on you suggestions:

1. I have proofread the whole page and modified some grammatical mistakes.

2. I have added contents concerning the main goal of each paper in the first section of the page and also made a comparison of the two papers in the last section.

3. I have added more details to the abstract section.

4. I modified the third reference and also consolidate the others' reference style.

And for your second suggestion, I think in this wiki page it is enough for readers to understand the Interactive Preference Elicitation process by getting familiar with the interactive interface and visualization examples without looking into the details of experiments.

Thanks again.

Bests,

YuYan