User talk:JinOuKim/sandbox/Computational Vision

Peer Reviews

1. Quality of Information: 2 - up to date content

2. Article size: 2 – Meets size requirement

3. Readability: 2 – Easy to read

4. Refs: 2 – References 5-8 look to be the same. With reduction has sufficient amount of references.

5. Links: 1 - More links should be added throughout the middle portion of the article

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - No Comments

7. Formatting: 2 – Well organized, but as a suggestions you do not need a heading for a subject with a single sentence.

8. Writing: 2 – Written well

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 0 not a registered user

10. Outstanding?: 2 – In depth about different imaging techniques

Total: 17 out of 20

JahedaK (talk) 8:10 PM, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2 - Has up to date content

2. Article Size: 2 - Meets minimum requirement.

3. Readability: 2 - Mostly readable, but some parts could be clearer

4. References: 2 - Repetitive references, but they meet the minimum number

5. Links: 2 - Adequate amount of links.

6. Responsive to Comments: 2 - There were no comments on talk page

7. Formatting: 2 - well formatted

8. Writing: 1 - Could have been better written, minor grammar errors throughout

9. Used Real Name: 1 - Name not registered

10. Outstanding: 2

Total: 18/20