Critique 3

The topic is relevant for the course. 4
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). 4
The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4
The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 4
There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 1
It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4
It is correct. 5
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). 5
It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
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. 4
If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 17

Thanks for the feedback. Do you have any specific ideas on how to improve the article?

Overall, the page is written clearly and it's easy to understand. I don't see any flaws but I have some comments that might be helpful to you.

I'm not a native speaker but I think it's better to say that 'you can see some results in figure x' or 'figure x shows some of the obtained results for the problem' instead of saying "in the image on the right" or using words like "below" or "above" to reference a figure or image. Thus, your figures will have labels and images can easily be found.
Another thing that comes to my mind is that if you're using a picture from another resource, you should add the reference to that image. The results showing margins for SVM seems familiar to me. I'm not sure about this so don't get me wrong.
It's not very important but I think it's better to use the link on the whole word not just part of it. In line 9 of section linear regression perspective: using "NP-hard" in the link rather than NP-"hard".