Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo DiCaprio/archive4

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2023 [1].

Leonardo DiCaprio

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After resolving a million sourcing issues, I am hoping fourth time is the charm for Mr DiCaprio. Have at it. FrB.TG (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

Images are licensed appropriately, have alt text and succinct captions. No changes to the images used from the previous nom except for one that was removed. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

appeal to young female audience members -- I think it should be young female audience, as adding members makes it sound like this refers to an audience gathered on a set while filming.
homosexual relationship -- same-sex relationship is more appropriate IMO
among teenage girls and young women in general that became known as "Leo-mania." -- I think in general can be dropped from this sentence.
a budget of $52 million, it became his second highest-grossing release after Titanic -- becoming his second highest-grossing release after Titanic.
starring Vera Farmiga (his co-star in The Departed) -- not sure if we need the parenthetical mentioning this bit, I think this sentence is fine without it
and considered relaxing with his friends therapy -- maybe "a form of therapy or something along those lines, so this bit doesn't read ambiguous.
A biopic about Hoover, the film focuses on the career -- Since it is Hoover's name on the film title, I don't think his name needs to be repeated. The biopic focuses on the career..
That's all from me. A few comments since my last review. Article is pretty-much in solid shape prose-wise. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done as suggested. Thank you for your re-review. FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise

I reviewed a couple of earlier rounds of this. I'd like to review again this time too. FrB.TG my old friend, let's see where this goes! Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working my way through the article.

Suggest merging these to avoid repeating his age of one: "When DiCaprio was one year old, his father moved out of their house after he fell in love with another woman. His parents divorced when he was one." Moisejp (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These details also feel slightly repetitive, and if there was a way to merge them more, that'd be great (but if you can't think of a good way to do so, no worries): "father moved out of their house after he fell in love with another woman ... they moved into twin cottages ... DiCaprio's father lived with his girlfriend and her son". <-- This comment assumes his girlfriend was the same person as "another woman". Moisejp (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because she is.

Farrar is described as the son of DiCaprio's father's girlfriend, and later as Dicaprio's stepbrother. It might be better to explicitly say his father married the girlfriend if this is the case, or if that disrupts the flow of ideas, you could instead just leave out the detail of Farrar being his stepbrother. Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve the prose for brevity. Looking forward to the rest of your review. :) FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, I've gotten a bit busy this week, but I'll be back to this review soon, don't you worry! Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Not sure this is very clear or adds anything. Consider removing? "he said, 'The new writing was awful [...] Either that, or I'm not sexy at all.'"
Also not sure this is clear: "driven by the desire to showcase an exceptional performance, which would focus on a profound transformation rather than rely on mere physical attractiveness." DiCaprio believed until now he was getting too much attention for his looks, and he believed this role would be especially good for showing people he could deliver an exceptional performance? Maybe the sentence could be rewritten to clarify the intended meaning? Moisejp (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done both. FrB.TG (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. In addition to my comments above, I've made several small edits throughout the article. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your re-review, edits and support. I highly appreciate it. FrB.TG (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by MyCatIsAChonk

Great to see this back at FAC, Inception is one of my favorite movies and his performance in it is fantastic. Seems like some others have gotten to the prose, so I'll take a look at the sources- no spotcheck necessary, since you have other FAs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations need to use consistent title casing (title case or sentence case), per MOS:CONFORMTITLE

I have used whatever case was used in the respective articles.

I'm 50% sure that the casing in the article is irrelevant- at least, that's what I've been told in other FACs and FLCs. Then again, you're a much more experienced editor than I, and I could be entirely incorrect. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, done. FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The works/publishers of citations should either all be wikilinked or none should be wikilinked. It looks like about half are linked right now, so it's up to you- I would link them all.

I have linked every work/publisher only on their first instance.

Fair enough. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might just be me, but all the Los Angeles Times citations show a paywall. If it's the same for you, add "subscription" to the access parameters

They all work fine for me. Maybe, LA Times is one of those sources that allow a certain number of free reads before you have to pay?

Refs where the publisher should be listed under "Work", so that the name of the site/magazine/whatever is italicized; 24, 33, 48, 102, 122 (just Entertainment.ie), 132, 135, 139, 161, 213, 219, 252, 255, 298, 300, 302, 313,

Done except in case of E! which is a network and doesn't need italicizing.

Ref 7 needs author
Ref 26's publisher is good, but Harper's Bazaar needs to be named as the work
Remove dash from Ref 52's publisher
Ref 48 needs date
Ref 52's publisher is The Numbers, not The-Numbers; ditto 84, 90, 99, 104, and 134
Ref 54 is incorrectly listed as dead; ditto 88
Ref 57 is dead
Ref 75's title has a typo: it's the Golden Globe Awards, no "s" after globe
Ref 76's date is wrong
Ref 79 needs author
Why is ref 81 listed with the "limited" lock, but none of the other The Independent citations have such a lock?
Ref 85 is dead
Ref 87 needs date
Ref 95 needs author
Ref 100 links to a page that links to IMDbPro- replace this source since IMDb is unreliable

Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, and the premium version is owned by IMDbPro, which isn't user-generated like IMDb.

Ref 101's author is not listed on the website
Ref 111 needs author
Ref 114 needs date

The source lists 1 Jan 2000 as the publication date for the review of a film released in 2004.

Ref 121 is incorrectly labeled as dead
Ref 127 is dead
Ref 129 should have "Associated Press" listed under the "agency" parameter
Ref 136's date is wrong
Ref 137 is dead
Ref 142 is incorrectly labeled as dead
Ref 149's title: "Inception" should be italicized
Ref 157's work is incorrect
Ref 165 is incorrectly listed as dead
Ref 171 is dead
Ref 189's publisher is appended with ".com"- remove the extension

Cowspiracy without the domain refers to the film, and I wanted to differentiate the film and website.

Ref 199's date is wrong
Ref 205 is incorrectly labeled as dead
Ref 206 needs "Associated Press" in the agency parameter
Ref 207's author is wrong
Ref 208 needs author
Ref 209's date is wrong
Ref 210's author needs a full last name
Ref 211: Oscars's and BAFTA's dates are wrong, Golden Globes is incorrectly labeled as dead
Ref 215: remove the inc from "Insider Inc"

The article is called Insider Inc. on Wikipedia though.

Refs 217 and 218 need authors
Ref 220 needs author
Ref 223 needs date- look at the archive date for reference; also, list "Variety" under agency parameter
Ref 228 is incorrectly labeled as dead; also, needs "subscription" under access parameter

I have intentionally left the archive link since one can read it without any payment restriction.

Ref 229 is incorrectly labeled as dead; also, needs author
Refs 232, 233, and 235's dates are wrong
Ref 240 is dead; also, date is wrong

Updated the live link whose date for some reason differs from that of the archive.

Ref 241's date is wrong
Ref 242 is not dead, but the website is essentially broken
Ref 244's date is wrong
Ref 250 is dead
Ref 254's title is not what's listed on the site
Ref 255 is not in French, and "TIME" in the title should be lowercase
The titles of the various citations in ref 256 are inconsistent- most use slideshow format and just name the article's title, but the last three use the title on the slide.
Ref 257s' citation's author is actually the editor of the article; also, the last one is incorrectly listed as dead
Ref 260 is dead
Refs 263, 265 are incorrectly listed as dead
Ref 270 needs author
Refs 278, 283, 284, 285 are incorrectly listed as dead
Ref 289 should have "Indo-Asian News Service" in the agency parameter
Ref 290 needs author
Ref 298 is dead
Ref 305 is incorrectly listed as dead
Ref 306 needs author
Ref 307 should have "Asian News International" in the agency parameter
Ref 311 is the same as 246
Ref 319's date is wrong

It says Sep 27, 2018, the same as in the article.

Ref 320's work should just be "Insider"- no .com
Ref 322's date is wrong
Ref 331's title needs a space before the dollar sign
Ref 333 is dead
Ref 336's date is wrong

@FrB.TG: Review done- don't feel obligated to respond to each one individually, just reply to this comment with your oppositions. No sources made me raise an eyebrow- all seem reliable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, thank you so much for such a detailed source review. I have listed my disagreements/discussions of individual points directly below the comment. The ones I haven't commented on are done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Replied to the casing comment above- other than that, the source formatting is good. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I've followed the progress of this article over many years now, and have made small contributions myself. Overall, it's a rock solid and consistently engaging bio that passes all the requirements of a featured article. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) FrB.TG (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: could I get a status update on this, please? This has been open for four weeks now and the last activity on it was almost two weeks ago. FrB.TG (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB, yes this has been stable for a while and was next on my list to go over for potential closure, so sit tight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian is probably a bit keener than me (autotranslate: I'm lazy). Not yet having been open for four weeks, I was keeping an eye on it to see if it would attract another general review or two. However, obviously I bow to my colleague's superior experience (autotranslate: he's right and I'm just being lazy). Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, not at all Gog, if you've had your eye on this one (I haven't till now) then I'm happy to leave to your judgement -- a little more commentary would certainly be preferable for such a high-profile subject... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.