Critique

SVM:

Put implementations of SVM Resize pictures (instead of thumbnail do framed) they are hard to see “Builds on” section paragraph 1 … I don’t know what “(read: not curved, unbroken)”

Builds on section is lengthy. Consider moving some of the information to the content section. Such as the “perception” description for example.

Additionally your mention of “multi-class problems, regression, and to non-linear splits” etc in the abstract could then be moved to the builds on sections.

Last sentence first paragraph of builds on I would suggest rewording. “the problem, then, is of where to place this hyperplane for a given data set.”

Overview first paragraph, put "support vectors" in bold

• 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 (make definitions more obvious. Is would be nice if they sick out more. Put them in bold and introduce them.)
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 4 (see previous comments)
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 0 (add some (: )
• 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. 4 (I think I could be expanded well from what you have in your to add section)
• 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. 4 (could add a few more)
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• 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: 17

I'll fix up some of the language in the article, and bold the definitions. Agree the builds on section could be altered, I think I'll move a lot of that down to the content section as another reviewer suggested.

Any thoughts on what type of code you'd like to see? The diagrams are generated in Matlab, but I'm not sure if that's suitable.