Talk:London Pride organisers apologise after protestors interrupt parade

Notes during review

Stop right there before publishing. "England" is important for the headline, move it again.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And so is which type of protestors interrupted the parade.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And HYS should be above the photo gallery. See the other article for example.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The question for the previous wording of the headline is not about the nature of the protesters, but about the organizers' characterization of the nature of the protesters. The truth in this case is too surreal to capture easily in a succinct headline, though maybe there's some way to do it; I felt after reading the original headline and then going on to read the article that I had been misled by both the headline and lede. I'm still uncomfortable about the lede, as it includes the essential information about how the organizers described the protesters but omits additional important information about who the protesters were. I noticed at least some of the sources doing better. I'm trying to decide now whether or not the current arrangement is sufficiently acceptable, and, if not, whether it's possible for me to fix it as reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "England:" prefix, as remarked in the edit summary I feel a reader, even if they don't know where London is, should be able to make a decision about whether they're interested to click through, and not feel misled once they do so. It worries me that we've lately gotten to prefixing a large fraction of our headlines with these sorts of prefixes, which can be used occasionally but are not all that great as headline style (they're not sentences) and seem to suggest anyone not from that country should not be interested, at odds with the sort of global awareness it seems we ought to encourage. --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4419430 [Passed]

Revision 4419430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In the form originally submitted, the article used the 'transphobic, hatful' quote in the headline, and used it again in the lede, and by the end of the lede still had not given any hint that the protesters belonged to one of the minorities associated with the event. Encountering that information at the start of the second paragraph, it seemed that important information had been withheld in a misleading way. This is very tricky to balance; contributing factors in the observed effect include the intervention of the second sentence of the lede before the information is provided at the start of the second paragraph, and the use of a direct quote from the organizers for the whole characterization of the incident in the lede. Looking through the sources, Gay Times has a very well-crafted lede that packs lots of important information into its few words. Some source ledes manage to achieve neutrality without such information about the "who" of the protesters, but looking at some examples of this, they're ultra-short ledes, a single sentence, with the information then given at the start of the next paragraph, whereas our article distances the second paragraph with an intervening second sentence of the lede. I struggled with what could be done that would be within purview of an independent reviewer, using the principle that if it has to be done and there's only one way to do it, there's no moral difference between doing it oneself and requiring someone else to. (There are of course any number of ways to do it if one is willing to drastically rewrite the lede, but those would be clearly not allowed.) I did consider how to omit the word "lesbians" from the lede, but it's far the least verbose way to communicate that the protesters belonged to a group theoretically under the LGBT umbrella. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4419430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In the form originally submitted, the article used the 'transphobic, hatful' quote in the headline, and used it again in the lede, and by the end of the lede still had not given any hint that the protesters belonged to one of the minorities associated with the event. Encountering that information at the start of the second paragraph, it seemed that important information had been withheld in a misleading way. This is very tricky to balance; contributing factors in the observed effect include the intervention of the second sentence of the lede before the information is provided at the start of the second paragraph, and the use of a direct quote from the organizers for the whole characterization of the incident in the lede. Looking through the sources, Gay Times has a very well-crafted lede that packs lots of important information into its few words. Some source ledes manage to achieve neutrality without such information about the "who" of the protesters, but looking at some examples of this, they're ultra-short ledes, a single sentence, with the information then given at the start of the next paragraph, whereas our article distances the second paragraph with an intervening second sentence of the lede. I struggled with what could be done that would be within purview of an independent reviewer, using the principle that if it has to be done and there's only one way to do it, there's no moral difference between doing it oneself and requiring someone else to. (There are of course any number of ways to do it if one is willing to drastically rewrite the lede, but those would be clearly not allowed.) I did consider how to omit the word "lesbians" from the lede, but it's far the least verbose way to communicate that the protesters belonged to a group theoretically under the LGBT umbrella. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.