I feel that this article is hopelessly partisan and needs to be comprehensively re-written. It actually uses "we" when talking about the event, undermining any neutrality. The tone throughout the article sounds like Wikipedia is trying to sell the event. Here are a list of examples with my notes:

 "Spring Harvest has become much more than just an annual event — albeit the largest Christian conference in Europe." This is not factual and is gloating - "much more".

"2,700 Christians attended the first event - a number that grew to 38,000 in only seven years." "Only" seven years - again, partisan opinion. 

Since its inception, Spring Harvest has had a profound impact on the life of the Church in the UK, and further afield.

It has encouraged new styles of worship. It has exposed Christians to a vast range of speakers and Church leaders from all over the world. It has helped evangelicals to recapture their commitment to social compassion, giving them a wider vision of what God is doing in the world." This is incredibly subjective and implies belief in God on the part of an encyclopedia.

"This has significantly contributed to the success of Spring Harvest as it can entertain all members of the average family." What is the "average" family and where is the factual evidence that Spring Harvest  can entertain them? Again, this sounds like a sales pitch.

The history and media coverage sections are also vague with the same unsuitable tone of laudation. To quote just one instance: "1999: Spring Harvest raises thousands of pounds to help the victims of brutality in Kosovo." This is not factual enough on the charity, sum etc to be included and so is merely a sales pitch. These dates seem to be chosen to present a positive image of the event.