Critique

Comments

The article is easy to read and the hypothesis is very clear. The animations are definitely helpful in understanding the outcome of the simulations. However, the result should have a follow-up discussion as there is no obvious intuition behind why near-perfect sensors yield worse results; my first impression was that it might be related to MATLAB floating point precision issues when doing arithmetic with numbers in the 1E-16 order with larger numbers. With some discussion of the results, the page will be great.

Scheme

• 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. 3
• 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. -
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4
• It is correct. -
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 4
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 4
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. -
• 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
• 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: 16