The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2022 [1].
I had intended to bring this article to a quality level back in 2015 or so when it was in really a bad shape. I could achieve this four years later. I thought to give it a go at FAC as well where it received five full supports and no oppose. However, I withdrew the nomination as it was taking too long to conclude (and because a review towards the end showed some MoS and prose issues). After almost two years of inactivity, I have recently returned to editing and thought to give it another try. Whether or not this fantastic actor's article gets the shiny star, I hope you learn some things about him and watch some of his films in the process. FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Been a while since I've reviewed an article here at FAC. Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
1991–1996: Early work and breakthrough
1997–2001: Titanic and worldwide recognition
2002–2009: Venture into film production
Hi Realmaxxver, would it possible for you to speed up your review a little if you have time? It has been almost a month now since you started your review, and I would like things to go a little faster, if possible. Thank you for your review so far. FrB.TG (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors
|
FrB.TG I am done with the review now. Support. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
I am leaving this as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post anything in a week. To be fully transparent, I did participate in the first FAC and support that nomination. Since the article is on the longer side (which is understandable given DiCaprio's career), I want to make sure I have the time to read everything thoroughly. Since DiCaprio is still very active, I'd encourage you to be mindful of the length in the future (though I believe this is a standard note for any FACs/FAs about living individuals with active careers). Apologies for not being able to post a review today. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I hope these comments are helpful. I will look through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
|
@Aoba47: Just chiming in as this FAC review features a few things I was involved in some way or another. Anyway, around the time he was dating a Danish woman named Nina Agdal, which I initially added, we kind of implicitly decided to stop updating his personal life section because it was becoming so-called gossip-y down there. I removed many of his significant relationships and only kept 3. This was before anyone really cared per se that the women he publicly dates are "25" or younger. Personally, I truly think it should only be briefly mentioned and further detail can be made into a "Personal relationships of Leonardo DiCaprio" article. Calling him a misogynist by the media for consensual relationships or even having a type teters on the wrong side of BLP to me. Especially when those sources aren't so reliable or high quality. Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
Placeholder. Going to review soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
First pass, have reviewed down to the end of upcoming projects. Hope these comments are helpful. Will review the remainder. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
Resolved comments
|
---|
I hate to leave you with a measly lead glance-over, but yyyyyyyyyikes am I low on time! I'll be back in the future, sometime this following week, hopefully. 18:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I'm back. I have the free time right now to finish but I'm working on other things in the background so the review will be a little slow, but I'll be posting after reviewing each section so you can work in between pauses.
Despite zero sleep last night and two cups of weak coffee, I'm going to plow through the rest of this review. Sorry for the large gaps in between comments, I've been having a rough week...
Aaaaand see you tomorrow. I know I said I'd finish but something came up just now and I must skeddadle. Tomorrow, I promise! Panini!🥪 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, nine hours of sleep and an additional 3 hour nap and I'm ready to rumble.
That should be it from me! This has probably been my favorite FAC to review; even though it's a very long article it kept my attention and made the timeline fun to follow along with due to how you've organized information. I've apologized a lot already, but once again, I apologize for taking a week to finish this! Please let me know when you have fulfilled all these queries/suggestions; anything you disagree with please say so, because normally I'll drop it. I don't make it an absolute requirement that all of my ideas need to be satisfied to gain my support, and as long as you have a reason to justify against one of them I won't argue back. Panini!🥪 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
You cite Sandler & Studlar 1999 but Sandler and Studlar are only the editors of the book. Rather, the relevant chapter and its author should be cited. JBchrch talk 04:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Harrias, hi you did the source review on its first nomination. Since not a lot of major things have changed (except for some updates) in terms of sources, would you be able to also do it this time around? I understand if you don’t have the time or inclination. Have a good day. FrB.TG (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
I'll take a crack at this. I see Harrias, pinged above re the source review hasn't edited for a few days; Harrias, if you want to chip in, please do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC) First a couple of things I can spot with scripts.
Other points, added as I find them.
Link validation done through FN180 (this version); will continue probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC) More:
That's it for the link checking. I'll take a look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a few sources that aren't the most reliable -- Hello and E! for example -- but they seem fine for what they're used for.
That's everything I can spot. There are some cases where links have not been archived, but though it's recommended it's not a requirement. I can't see any formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |
Source review passes; all the above fixes have been verified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, do you have some time to conduct an image review again considering you also did it the last time? FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@FAC coordinators: Two questions. May I nominate another article? What's the status update on this nom? FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
website=
parameter at ((cite web)) would imply they should be.That's all for now, from just looking at the first paragraph... I will have a closer look later hopefully, but (and sorry to have to say this) I am a little concerned that overall the prose is not polished enough to satisfy criterion 1a (which I still think of as "brilliant, refreshing prose" even if the label has changed!) I see SandyGeorgia raised prose as an issue at the last FAC in 2019 so not sure if major copyediting has been done since then? If not, I think this might benefit from a thorough comb through and perhaps a peer review to get it up to the requisite standard. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay. I'm finding it very hard to fit much editing time in at present, so you'll have to bear with me if I'm absent again. Just for the record I would probably oppose promotion as things stand unfortunately, just because I think the prose needs work - it is fixable though. Obviously given my potential inability to commit to combing the whole article, and the support !votes above, it's up to the coords what to do if I end up absent for a long time again!
Cheers for now — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Placeholder; comments soon Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Just to mention, I randomly selected these sentences, scrolling up and down the article. Not entirely convinced by the spot-checks, so this one needs further spot-checks to ensure that sources exactly verify what article conveys. Thansk! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Coming up. JBchrch talk 22:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Focusing the problematic spot checks:
JBchrch talk 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Some spot checks from another editor:
These were three of the five random cites I checked. The other two were fine, but I'm not comfortable with the source-text integrity here. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi FrB.TG, hope you've been well! I meant to jump in and review this in January but have been off the grid the last few months. :D Since this hasn't been promoted yet, it gives me a chance to review now. I supported in the first FAC in 2019 and am happy to support again now on prose and comprehensiveness. I have read through it twice and made several small suggested edits. My only remaining minor suggestion is in the last two sentences in Philanthropy, "According to the news agency Associated Press, this amount was inaccurate" feels a bit awkward linked with the rest of the content in the second sentence; I suggest tying it to what's in the first sentence instead. Also ref 285 supporting this bit seems superfluous as it just repeats word-for-word part of what is in ref 284. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)