- 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].
- 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)[edit]
- 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[edit]
- 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]
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[edit]
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]
- 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[edit]
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]
@WP: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]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.