Talk:Pride in Liverpool/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 06:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I'm going to have to quickfail this, per quickfail criteria #1 ("it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria") and #2 ("it contains copyright violations"). The biggest issue is that you have a fair amount of text lifted from the sources without an attempt to paraphrase; range of themes from virtual interviews with LGBT+ champions and allies and responsible for driving the strategic goals of the charity, managing overall operations and leading on key events and campaigns delivered by the organisation are both lifted wholesale from ref #11, while if you review Earwig you'll find several other cases where you've insufficiently paraphrased your wording from the source. In turn, as expected for an article with insufficient paraphrasing, the article's language is promotional and reads more like a pamphlet than an encyclopedia; sections such at By 2012, lessons had been learned and a much more coherent and unified approach was adopted. The Pride committee pledged that a presence would be maintained around the gay quarter thanks to a close working partnership with the Village Business Association, the collective that had organised Stanley Street Pride in 2011. Furthermore, a number of new people elected to Liverpool Pride's Board of Trustees had proven experience as organisers of the Stanley Street Pride the previous year, which meant dialogue between the local gay scene and the main Pride organisers would be much more constructive and free-flowing read more like the organization's history of the event than Wikipedia's. There are additionally several uncited or insufficiently cited paragraphs and extensive use of non-independent sourcing. The image use is also discordant to image policies and guidelines, due to the extensive use of animated GIFs to display several images at once where a {{multiple image}} template or similar would be better indicated. Vaticidalprophet 06:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]