Critique

I generally agree with Ekta. Obviously the page is unfinished, but you'll want to clear up the template stuff soon ("Put links to the more general categories...", "This should contain the reverse links..."). You can comment out notes you've left for yourself or future editors using "<!-- (comment) -->", or just leave them it in the "To Add" section.

It's definitely worth adding some motivation and high level examples (like the chocolates example, but be clear up front that we're trying to find the relative proportions - not just that we don't know them). You'll also want to write a "Builds on" section.

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 3 - there's a few grammatical errors, and explanations need to flow better
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 4 - good idea to cover the basics of probability, but you should link to this wiki's page on the subject. I'd maybe make the probability section shorter, and refer to that page for the specifics (like a detailed explanation of the chain rule)
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 3 - including math here makes sense, but I'm not totally sure it makes things easier to understand - maybe more explanation of terms and notation would be useful, as well as a general explanation of the implications of each equation
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 3 - move the abstract under "abstract" and write a shorter one-sentence summary for the top of the article
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 4 - chocolates example is good, add more like this but be clear what we're trying to achieve with each one
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 0 - example code might be useful
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3 - obviously a few things that are incomplete
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 2 - definitely expand
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 4 - focus on the page-specific content, not a wide overview of probability theory
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 2 - should definitely be linking to the probability page
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 2 - hard to tell! Add a <references/> tag under "Annotated Bibliography".
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 3
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 2

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 10 Needs work and expanding, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong.

Thanks Alistair for your feedback! I tried to correct most of my mistakes. But I'm not sure whether all the grammatical mistakes are corrected or not. I changed abstract section, added some figures and etc. But, adding a pseudo code is not necessary I suppose because the problem is straightforward and in cases where we don't know the exact solution we use algorithms like gradient descent and stochastic gradient that are not relevant here. My wiki is now finished. You can take a look at it if you want.