Wikipedia:Peer review/Urban legend/archive1

Urban legend
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have editing this article for quite some time now, and I think it's ready for GA, but I need to know where to clean up on some more before I proceed with the nomination.

Thanks, Secret Saturdays   ( talk to me )what's new? 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Interesting, and written to a generally good prose standard. However, in my view the article requires attention in a number of areas before it is ready for GAN.
 * The caption in the lead image needs to be redrafted so that its meaning is clear. At present it requires the use of two links to interpret it.
 * Is it really the case that an urban legend has to be believed by its tellers to be true? Believed by its original tellers, maybe. However, my experience is that such legends are often propagated by tellers who begin along the lines of: "I don't know if this is true, but..."
 * "Brunvand ... is credited as the first to use the term..." Credited by whom?
 * Parts of the article are seriously under-referenced. For example, the "Origins" section has no citations after the first sentence. Throughout the article there are uncited statements; I have added a couple of citation tags, but there could be many more.
 * Prose needs to flow. Single short-sentence paragraphs, such as appear in the "Structure" section, and to a lesser extent in others, should be avoided.
 * A general reference to unspecified works of a large number of authorities is not particularly useful. It would be better to select one or two of these, and cite sources that specifically supports your assertion.
 * "o-a-ks" does not signify a pronunciation (I wonder if the pronunciation is actually relevant)
 * The use of phrases such as "of course" introduces a personal. POVish feel to the prose. This sentence reads like a personal side-comment, and should be removed.
 * There are no citations at all in the "Documenting" section
 * I am dubious about the value of the See also section. Significant legends should be discussed (or mentioned) and linked in the text.

I hope these commenta are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)