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

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

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

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

• 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?

• bedbound...bed-bound

• You use both styles in the lead.

• 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.

• 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.

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

• Do you mean "woman"?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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".

• 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?

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

• 69th Primetime Emmy Awards?

• 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.

• 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.

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:

   In progress.

   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:

   Looks good so far.

   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:

   In progress.

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:

   In progress.