Talk:I Am Human (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Medicine: Neurology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from I Am Human (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the documentary film I Am Human has been the conversation starter for neuroscience panel discussions at universities such as Harvard?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/I Am Human (film).

Wikipedia

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Debuted in Canada in 2020 CBC (wayback)
DigitalTrends

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 15:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the documentary film I Am Human has been used as a panel conversation starter by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers?

Source: IEEE

ALT1: ... that the documentary film I Am Human has been the conversation starter for neuroscience panel discussions at universities such as Harvard?
Source:
- Harvard
- Case Western Reserve University
ALT2: ... that the documentary film I Am Human "chronicles how neurotechnology could restore sight, retrain the body, and treat diseases—then make us all more than human"? Source: See the subtitle of this WIRED article
ALT3: ... that the documentary film I Am Human has been praised for its "fundamentally optimistic" nature with relation to "neuroscience and brain medicine"? Source: "We’re in a dark moment for the tech industry: a time when some new technologies have been adopted recklessly and backfired terribly, and others have developed far more slowly than their creators hoped. Against the backdrop of this pessimism, a film like I Am Human — a fundamentally optimistic documentary about neuroscience and brain medicine — feels surprisingly refreshing." The Verge
ALT4: ... that the documentary film I Am Human asks the existential question "what makes us human"? Source: "By the end, though, the film's central question is more of an existential one: What makes us human?" WIRED
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Katz Gulfstream Charter Crash

Created by TheSandDoctor (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems: - Length is a bit iffy; the direct quotations take up a sizable portion of the article.

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - ALTs 2 through 4 are a bit too involved with the content of the film itself. Not technically barred by WP:DYKFICTION, but may affect neutrality

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Preference is for ALT1, though I'd use "such as" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Thank you for the review. I have copyedited ALT1 per your suggestion as that is a good idea/better grammar. I respectfully disagree with relation to the length, though. I just added up the characters of the quotes and count only around 517 characters out of an article the DYKcheck tool says is over 2600 characters in length. Given that the DYK criterion for length is only 1500 characters, taking all of the quotes away would still leave us with around 2000-2100 characters in length, more than enough to qualify. The production section has no quotes, the premise has 2 but ultimately equating to a sentence, release has no quotes, and it is almost impossible to have a "critical reception" section without any quotes since that section is about what critics have written; take for example Shake It Off#Critical reception or Hackney Diamonds#Critical reception etc. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reception section is fine. However, the third paragraph of #Premise is 60% quotations. The lengthy quotation in the lede could also be paraphrased to better present the premise; that would help improve neutrality as well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Does that look better now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this looks better. Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there secondary sources to support ALT1? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: I would think that a statement from Harvard advertising the panel, including info on who is speaking (including Harvard Medical School faculty), and another from another university (Case Western Reserve University) stating the same would be sufficient to back up the plural for "universities" and, more narrowly, justify the mention of Harvard. In Case Western's case, the eventbrite they link for the event does explicitly detail that it was hosted by the university's School of Medicine. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think a non-primary source would be necessary, given that this is non-contentious and descriptive statement of facts (per WP:PRIMARY) that comes not from the filmmakers but the institution. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]