Critique

The scores refer to the page I’m reading now while I’m critiquing, and I think some parts are still under construction, as suggested in the to add section. If the page will be changed in the meantime I think the scores will change as well :) I think the page is missing a “common” structure, something that can help the user to understand the links between the two papers between diving into the details. It would be useful to better explain the connection between the two papers. The Summary, Abstract, Related on, Built on and Discussion sections might be still under construction, as suggested in “To Add”? And I agree that some images or diagrams might help the reader to understand the topics or the algorithms better. Paper 1 English is not clear in the “Conclusion” section; maybe it is possible to use some rewording to make it more clear and easy to follow. Paper 2 English not really clear in the “Introduction”. I think there might be a typo (artefact instead of artifact) in the “ESOM” section. In the introduction it says that the paper attempts to solve the problem of processing online data streams, but it doesn’t give any further explanation or information, which can be interesting. The “Simulation” section contains a lot of information, but some things can be either explained better or taken out; for instance for colour image quantization as online data clustering, at some points it mentions 2 natural images without giving any explanation.

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: 2 • 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: 3 • The abstract is a concise and clear summary: - • There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear: 3 • There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code: - • 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: - • The references and links to external pages are well chosen: - • 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: 3 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 15