Critique 1

Critique 1

This is a very cool topic and an excellently written article on it. The introduction was especially interesting and provides enough background without being overbearing.

However, I do find the lack of mathematical formalism to occasionally obfuscate the descriptions of the methodologies in the papers. For example, a simple definition of the wavelet transform would be sufficient.

It might also be a good idea to split up the description of the methodologies into several paragraphs or even into a tasteful application of point form.

The first image may need citations.

Some small grammatical errors:

"A common approach to to..." in the second paragraph of "Financial Forecasting"

Random square bracket just before "time-series analysis" in the third paragraph of "Financial Forecasting"

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. 2
  • The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
  • There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 4
  • There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 4
  • 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. 4
  • 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. 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

CarlKwan (talk)10:22, 10 March 2018