User:Klosc440

Article evaluation:

Annotated bibliography

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article was detailed and relevant. It was specific, informative and easy to understand.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article was neutral and well balanced. There is not a bias in any particular direction.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? A point that I may have liked to see represented is the “why” and the purpose of having an annotated bib. This also may not be represented because of the potential for bias there. They also fail to cover, or include a link to how to source something in MLA or APA format. The annotations are inclusive for all formats but I don’t know if the proper citation is required or not when annotated.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links work and go to sites dedicated to improving the quality of the academic bibliographies. They support the claims effectively.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the facts are cited to reliable sources. The only bias may be that they come only from universities. However, The likeliness of when one would need to create an annotated bibliography outside of academia is extremely slim.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

I didn’t find any information out of date. The only thing I would have added was a link for how to properly cite a source.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?  In the talk page they are having conversations about how to format this, article, if examples should be included, and If the whole page should be a subsection of the bibliography article on Wikipedia.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as start class and mid-level importance. It is part of the WikiProject dedicated to improving Library-related subjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article is unbiased and well cited as it should be but still has room for improvement on the quality and thoroughness.

Tertiary source

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? This whole article is relevant to the topic and did not really distract, there was nothing glaring.  

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It is fairly neutral, however, it is evident that the writer considers a tertiary source to be useful for things source mining and not much else.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? This is a fairly scant article, the viewpoint that is most represented is that what distinguishes a secondary source from a tertiary source is very dependent on who is doing the research and what the user needs it for.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Only two of the five links work. So I would say that no there are not sources that sufficiently support this article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the facts are cited but they are cited to broken links or websites that have been moved.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

While the information is not out of date the links all are and should be updated.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?  The talk page is fairly negative addressing the massive room for improvement on this article. They're talking about how ineffective it is to start a page discussing how relative a term is when in theory it should be fairly easy to discern.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as start class and low importance. It is part of the WikiProject dedicated to improving Library-related subjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This does differ from how we discussed it in class. It is not a fully flushed out, neutral, well-cited article like it should be

Wikipedia idea list –

1.      Ahi-Poke -this article only has terrible pictures and barely covers what can be included in the dish, what is traditional and what the history of the food is. Why Ahi specifically is the fish to use for this or what poke sauce entails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahi_poke

edited: 4/19/17

Ideas:

Academic onefile:

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA460373425&docType=Recipe&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA460373425&searchId=R3&userGroupName=cod_lrc&inPS=true

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=5&docId=GALE%7CA454783203&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA454783203&searchId=R3&userGroupName=cod_lrc&inPS=true

http://www.foodandwine.com/blogs/7-things-you-need-know-about-poke

http://surfjack.com/hype-history-poke-bowls/

New York Times:

https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E3DF1F3BF934A25753C1A9629C8B63

https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/10600-basic-poke recioe

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/dining/poke-restaurant-wisefish-chelsea.html contemporary

Defining Ahi:

http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.85/cgi-bin/hdict?a=q&j=pk&l=en&q=%CA%BBahi&a=d&d=D274

Page on poke:

https://books.google.com/books?id=J_hLCCASdv0C&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

-Im going to change the images so that they don't look like lunch line food and I am planning on changing the descriptions of the images to eliminate the comparison to a"blood vessel"

-I am going to discuss the options for what you can put in the salad with links to the wikipedia articles on those ingredients

-discussing what poke sauce is and how it is traditionally made

-This page needs some history as well and when it is typically consumed in hawaii and the growing popularity around the world

I plan on source mining from the Poke (fish salad) page and using some of the talk page discussion points there to gear my article that specifically discusses tuna.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***** lead ***** 4/24/17ish

• A lead section that is easy to understand
• A clear structure
• Balanced coverage
• Neutral content
• Reliable sources

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

current lead copied from the article: ʻAhi poke is a traditional Hawaiian food prepared with raw marinated ahi tuna. It is a traditional part of a plate lunch. Of the various styles of Hawaiian poke, ahi poke is likely the most popular one in Hawaii.

new one: Ahi poke (poh-kay) is a traditional Hawaiian dish, made from raw yellowfin or Bigeye tuna that has been seasoned and mixed with other ingredients. Poke is the Hawaiian verb meaning "to slice or cut" http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29789161/hawaiian-word-of-the-day-poke (link) Hawaiian poke can be comprised of many different ingredients, but Ahi Poke is a popular variation.

Ingredients: There are many variations on what can be included in poke, traditional Hawaiian poke can consists of cubed raw fish, maui onions, Inamona (a condiment made of roasted, salted candlenut), Limu (algae), soy sauce, green onions, or sesame oil. Some of the more contemporary variations can also include seaweed, Roe (fish eggs), wasabi, dried or fresh chilli, toasted macadamia nut, Furikake and can be served alone or on top of a bed of white rice, pineapple, Sushi-meshi (seasoned rice) or red cabbage. The possibilities for variation are endless, however, what gives Ahi Poke its name is the yellowfin "Ahi" tuna used.

https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E3DF1F3BF934A25753C1A9629C8B63

History: Poke started as a snack or lunch created by fisherman from uncooked scraps of their catch seasoned with whatever was on hand. https://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Poke.htm Poke can be found fresh in supermarkets and restaurants across Hawaii and is largely considered a staple in the local cuisine. Tuna is an important fish in the global market.

http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.85/cgi-bin/hdict?a=q&j=pk&l=en&q=%CA%BBahi&a=d&d=D274

https://books.google.com/books?id=J_hLCCASdv0C&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Contemporary:

In recent years Ahi Poke has been included in the wave of poke popularity among American restaurants. These restaurants have been creating traditional as well as creative modern versions of the dish. These variations can include avocado, ponzu, teriyaki sauce, mushrooms, crispy onions, pickled jalapeno, Sriracha sauce, cilantro, pineapple or cucumber. There is an "I Love Poke" festival in San Diego, California to celebrate the dish and its many variations. https://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Poke.htm

warning?

Consuming raw or undercooked fish may pose a health threat to pregnant women. high levels of mercury and hepatitis.

https://google2.fda.gov/search?client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&requiredfields=-archive:Yes&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=*&ie=UTF-8&ulang=en&access=p&sort=date:D:L:d1&entqr=1&entqrm=0&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ud=1&&q=raw+fish