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. 3
   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. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
   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. 4
   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. 4
   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

Comments:

  • Under Related Pages, there is a "Hidden Markov Model" wiki page that you can link to instead of the Wikipedia article.
  • Note that the citations you have (the superscripts [1], [2], etc.) are not actual links.
  • Maybe you can include examples/definitions/explanations of "control vector" and "Gaussian random vector".
MayYoung (talk)01:41, 8 February 2018