Talk:Unrest (2017 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Femke (talk · contribs) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

• You've got Jennifer Brea linked three times here; Kim Roberts is linked twice.

  Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The infobox is missing relevant info regarding the production companies, etc. I will specify tomorrow .

• Little by Little Films
• Impact Partners
• Artemis Rising Foundation
• Chicken & Egg Pictures

In prose, this would be expressed as "A Shella Films & Little By Little Films co-production, in association with Impact Partners and Chicken & Egg Pictures".[1]

I went ahead and updated the infobox. I also added Netflix and Independent Lens to the distribution credit since Netflix had subscription video on demand (SVOD) rights and Independent Lens had broadcast rights.

Lead

• Unrest is a 2017 documentary film produced and directed by Jennifer Brea.[1][2]

• Do you need these sources in the lead if the lead is a summary of the main points in the body?
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• bedbound...bed-bound

• You use both styles in the lead.
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

• Consider adding (ME) after the use in the lead and the first use in the body since you use this without initially linking it to the term.
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Unrest was shortlisted for the Academy Award for best documentary feature

• Instead of linking to the general Academy Awards here, you have two additional options that may be more appropriate. One is Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film. Another is the 90th Academy Awards, if that is the correct link.
• Same thing with Sundance. Options include 2017 Sundance Film Festival and List of Sundance Film Festival award winners.
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis

• A women in the US is left by her husband, who believed the illness is psychological.

• Do you mean "woman"?
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

• Consider adding (ME) after the first use, as in "myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)" since you use ME later and assume the reader knows what it is.
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• A young woman in the UK has developed osteoporosis, as she has been unable to leave her bed for years

• Just a note, the format here is slightly divergent given the previous statements, although it is obvious that it mirrors the "A women in the US is left by her husband" up above. It might help the prose flow if you add something like "Elsewhere, a young woman in the UK develops osteoporosis, unable to leave her bed for years" or something along those lines. Perhaps expanding that a bit might help?
  • It's difficult to expand, as sources don't say too much about here.

• They attribute this the difficult-to-understand nature of symptoms

• You're missing a word. Maybe "They attribute this to the difficult-to understand nature of symptoms".
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The documentary finally depicts the 2016 Millions Missing protests

• This is a tough one, but I would stylize it as "The documentary finally depicts the 2016 'Millions Missing' protests", with double quotes ("Millions Missing", not the single that I show), but I'm not honestly sure if that's correct per the MOS. You may want to look at it yourself and use your best judgment. Without the quotes or some way of offsetting "Millions Missing", I find it confusing.

• What about "The documentary finally depicts the 2016 #MillionsMissing protests" in parity with the section below?
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The synopsis fails to mention Omar Wasow
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Release

• The film received one of the two inaugural Creative Distribution Fellowships of the Sundance Institute.

• Just wanted to say nicely done noting this.

• There was another version of the film released. It was called Unrest VR.[2] "Unrest VR premiered in the Virtual Arcade at the 2017 Tribeca Film Festival. It was also showcased at Sheffield Doc/Fest in the Immersive VR section of the Alternate Realities Exhibition, where it won the Alternate Realities VR Award."

• There's a fascinating economic breakdown of the entire release and distribution process here. At the time of the article, the film was still operating in the red and had not made its money back. This analysis of the economic costs of the film reminded me of Stephen J. Dubner's conversation with Sonia Friedman about the theatrical success of Stereophonic and how incredibly difficult it is for a film like Unrest to make any money at all.

Reception and impact

• Much of what I said about links to awards up above also applies here.

• 69th Primetime Emmy Awards?
  • Good thing that you asked me this. I'm no longer sure it's correct (the claim is about the less famous News and Documentary Emmy Awards). I can't find mention of Unrest on the Emmy's website, IMDB claims the documentary won the 2019 award, which is odd if it came out in 2017, right? I've replaced it with an award I could confirm the film won.
    • I don't think the Award is less famous, it's just that there's so many categories that have to split things up. It's found over at the 40th News and Documentary Emmy Awards It looks like Unrest was nominated in July 2019,here but lost out to Wildland when the award was announced in September.[3] The confusion comes from the production company, who erroneously said they won when it was just a nomination.[4] The article should make mention of the nomination.
      • That's some impressive navigation on the Emmy website. I think I spent about 10 minutes on there before giving up. Have readded it to the original source. The production company did say it was nominated, just didn't make this obvious in their formatting. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• The home footage helped bring out the authenticity around how ME put strains on the marriage of Brae and her husband, and the resilience they displayed in overcoming these strains

• That's probably fine, but I think you could benefit from trying to clean it up and rephrase.
  • Me and chatGPT rewrote. Should be easier now.

• While Unrest does not propose a direct solution for people with ME/CFS, it does showcase hope in the #MillionsMissing protests, which sought greater recognition for the illness.

• Given the use of the italicized #MillionsMissing protests here, perhaps that's the solution to the query I posted up above regarding the name in the synopis, where you wrote "The documentary finally depicts the 2016 Millions Missing protests". Would it make sense to add the stylized, hashtag italic name here for clarity? I will add this to the above. It would also align with hashtag activism.

• It gave a boost to the growth of the #MEAction network, and the #MillionsMissing protests.

• You don't italicize #MillionsMissing protests here like you did in the previous paragraph.
  • Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor issues noted above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Minor issues noted above.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Good.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Per WP:SELFSOURCE, Twitter is used appropriately here.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No OR detected

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   None that I see.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Doesn’t mention Omar Wasow by name, which I thought was an odd oversight considering his role as the supporting partner

   No mention of Unrest VR

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Well done. Very professional in its focus.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article is fair and without bias and accurately represents the documentary in what can only be described as expert-like brevity that doesn’t linger this way or the other

   I also want to note that given the charged subject material, this is not easy to do, so the nominator should be congratulated on making the impossible, possible.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Valid non-free rationale.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Infobox image.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold due to minor issues as noted above. There are some additional prose issues that I have not yet noted that I will add tomorrow.

   @Femke: I will pass if you can figure out how to add mention of the Unrest VR interactive non-fiction release to the release section and fix the new Emmy info about the nomination up above. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)