Critique

For someone without the required background knowledge on the topic, the technical aspect of the page could be rather elusive and difficult to follow. In this regard, providing elementary overviews before elaboration would definitely aid comprehension. Moreover, different types of losses were mentioned without any explanation as to what they measure (e.g. reconstruction loss, classification loss, cross entropy loss). A brief description of their purpose would be very useful. Finally, it would be beneficial to have the contributions of the second paper elucidated in a more explicit way. Overall, it was a very good page and the use of examples was helpful.

P.S. This sentence seems to lack a verb, so you might want to look into it. “we also a corresponding discrete random variable ...”

(5) The topic is relevant for the course.

(5) The writing is clear and the English is good.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(5) 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).

(4) It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki.

(4) 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.

(4) This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate.

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18.5/20