Critique 2

I am not sure if we are supposed to do marking or critique now, so here are my current comments on the page:

Comments

Solid and concise page on the topic. It seems to cover all the relevant aspects of Markov Logic. However, it is a tad short, which I think that is due to the constraints of the topic. Here are my questions and concerns:

• Is this page just about Markov Logic or Markov Logic Networks? Would it not make sense to name it Markov Logic Networks instead?
• I think the page could benefit from some more mathematical examples, e.g., for MAP inference. It may also be pseudo code for MaxWalkSAT?
• "As a side note, MAP inference is also known as MPE inference in Bayesian network literature." I think you should add a direct reference here.
• The example is quite brief, and I am not sure if I understand it correctly. What is meant to show me? How my cousins are related to each other? How does the weight come into play? Also the image is a bit small, I would try to expand it.
• I am not sure if a CPSC 422 course if a good academic reference, is it only used because of the example? What about the example in the UW Paper?
• The UW paper in general is very expansive and cited a lot, so there is a lot material for this topic. What are other aspects of Markov Logic Networks, which may be worth mentioning?

Marking Scheme

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 (The abstract is quite short, but covers pretty much all the content in the page.)
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5 
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 2 ( There is probably some potential here in terms of MAP estimation.)
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3 ( I think
   It is correct. 5 (Did not see any glaring errors.)
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 3 ( For Markov Logic this is correct, on the other hand there seems to be a lot of content on Markov Logic Networks.) 
   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. 5
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 3
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4 ( I think it works well as an introduction.)
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 3

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 17