User:DataNomadX/Reinforcement learning/ConvertibleFlyingSaucer Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

DataNomadX

Link to draft you're reviewing

Reinforcement Learning

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Reinforcement Learning

Evaluate the drafted changes

I think this article is a “re-imagining” of sorts, since the Wikipedia version is already too complete in most of the surface-level literature. This seems to be exclusively the lead for what would be this editor’s contribution.

The article link for the first reference does not lead to the actual entry in the course that defines Reinforcement Learning. Going to the link and following the course materials into the entries which would presumably define Reinforcement Learning, such as “Types of machine learning”, or “What is machine learning?” did not yield any mention of Reinforcement Learning. Similarly, the second link does not lead to a clear source for Supervised Learning, and the description for the videos’ I checked do not mention Reinforcement Learning; I skimmed the first video, not finding it mentioned there, so the last statement in the first paragraph might require another citation.

The third source is comprised of lecture notes from a professor in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which are complex and seem preferred over a textbook in said professor’s course. It is a careful line to walk, since Wikipedia’s entry “Wikipedia:Reliable sources” deems it sometimes acceptable (look at the pre-print section). However, it is not known which of these lectures were used as a source for this text. Source 5 is also a link to a class, so it is subject to the same issues.

Also, it seems more like these sources are pointing towards where the reader can delve into the topic, rather than linking to the specific entry where the information was taken from, and misses placing the citation at the end to justify each sentence or even each paragraph. A few sentences lack citation; the last two paragraphs entirely miss it as well, and I can only infer that it might be that article 6 was used as a source for them, though I could not find a clear reference to what was mentioned in the few entries I inspected.

Overall Impressions

As it stands, the content in this article cannot be substantiated by the sources; more specific citations are needed to back up these paragraphs. However, the structure and presentation of ideas for a lead is well done.