Critique #2

I should emphasize in advance that having worked with PCAs extensively, I may not the best eye for catching unclear steps. I found the page a great read overall. There is a tendency of repetition (such as re-iterating the overview of PCA during abstract, motivation and overview) which in my opinion is fine and probably re-enforces learning. The notation was a bit unclear at the beginning especially with d+1 since PCA is an unsupervised algorithm where you don't really need a label Y, to perform it effectively (that said, there are variations that factor Y in explicitly). Updating the notation to discussing such variations may potentially aid in improving the page. However, all said, it's an excellent foundational page on PCA, that's clear, reasonably concise and covers the topic well.

Marking at this stage would be (roughly): 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 There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5 There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 4.5 (steps are sufficient, but maybe adding pseudo-code could help) 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. 3 (you could definitely link more pages on "builds on" and "related" sections.) The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 4 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. 5 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18.5