Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo DiCaprio/archive1

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 December 2019 [1].

---

Leonardo DiCaprio

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio does not really need an introduction unless you have been living under a rock for the past 25 years. He starred in that long-forgotten film about that ship that sank, those films in which he constantly loses his shit, or those ones where plays a character playing a character. He is the actor that hasn't gone wrong with a single role choice (well almost). Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading his article. FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

Looking through this, I'm not a big fan of the sourcing, especially as this is a BLP. Of the 255 references, only 15 are to book sources. Quite a few are from E! and the Oprah network, which while not bad per se seems like something that could be replaceable with better sources if possible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's almost inevitable from fans, but very difficult to avoid all the same. ——SerialNumber54129 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DiCaprio's notability almost entirely lies in the internet era and his career is in popular culture so that's where we're going to find the most information about him. All relevant facts about him are available online, which has been the case for many of my and others' FAs about modern artists (see Kate Winslet for example). We are lucky enough that a good biography is available which I used for some information. Other than that, everything is available online.

I have replaced the one from Oprah, I don't see any problem with sourcing E! though. FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That is all fair enough, and none of the sources seem awful (no Daily Mail, for example). The article looks good as is, but I'll have to look at it some more when I get time to make a final judgment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with FrB.TG about the sourcing. With book sources, you'll mainly see a lot of self-published material, trivia material, and other poor material. You'll see stuff like "The Leonardo Dicaprio Handbook - Everything You Need to Know about Leonardo Dicaprio." There are solid book sources here and there, but that's here and there. And this goes for the vast majority of celebrities. Take a look on Google Books.

Anyway, I alerted WP:Film to this nomination for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about putting this off. I've looked at the article and it appears to be in good order on my front, so I'll support this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• Some of the portraits are quite similar - not convinced we need all of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review. I have added alt text to all images now and removed one of the portraits. FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

I'd like to try to review this. I just need to finish off the current one I'm reviewing and fit in some time. Give me a few days to try to start something, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead:

• The "In the 2010s" sentence in the third paragraph feels long (especially since each film is preceded by its genre, which soon begins to feel repetitive). Do you necessarily need that many examples from the 2010s? Or if so maybe there's a way to rejig the sentence to make it feel less repetitive. Moisejp (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed two films, one from 2010 and 2013, as he had another release each of those years, which were more successful so I think they should suffice. -FrB.TG

Great, it reads a lot better now. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Early life and acting background:

• "DiCaprio and his mother lived in several Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while his mother worked several jobs." Maybe replace one of the instances of "several" to avoid repetitiveness. One idea: "multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods".
• "When he was two, he went to a performance festival with his family where he went up on stage and started dancing, which entertained the crowd and he loved the attention." The "and he loved the attention" ending feels a bit run-on and awkward. I don't have any immediate suggestions for the best way to fix this, but if you need ideas I can try to think about it more. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded it a little. Hopefully it reads better now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Titanic: (Minor comment) "DiCaprio initially refused to play the character". For me, "refused" feels a bit strong for this context. Maybe "declined" or "was not interested in" (if the source supports this) would work better. Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Replaced with "had doubts about". FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not my speediest review, but I'll get in some more comments soon. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• You probably know, and did you consider adding that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker? [[2]] Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• "DiCaprio's performance, although well-received, was overshadowed by that of Daniel Day-Lewis' according to most critics." If there's any chance that "most" may be too strong, it could be safer to change this to "many". (I would strongly support this change, unless you're very confident "most" is justified.) Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• "He was interested to find "out of the box" material from an actor's perspective and develop it that way from the original source work." Should this be "interested in finding"? Also I'm not exactly sure what "develop it that way" means here. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

All done. FrB.TG (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your changes look good. More from me soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• "After narrating the 2019 global warming documentary Ice on Fire,[174] DiCaprio returned to acting after four years in Quentin Tarantino's comedy-drama Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, " Better to avoid repetition of "After... after" if possible. Moisejp (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• "A few days later, possibly influenced by this meeting, the Pope said he would act in a planned faith-based charity film, Beyond the Sun, whose profits were donated to charities in Argentina." I have mixed feelings about this sentence. While it is one example of DiCaprio's great notability in that he could influence the Pope, it's possibly a little confusing in that it's in the environmentalism section, but the Pope's charity does not seem to be environmental-related. Every other sentence in the section is about environmental promotion—including raising money for the environment—but this sentence is about raising money for something else, so it could be confusing. I'm not saying necessarily to take it out (again, it is a very notable event in DiCaprio's life), I'm just noting here that I have mixed feelings about its current location. Ideas could be to keep it as it is, to move it to elsewhere in the article, to put it in a footnote, or to find a way to make it extra clear (in case it's not clear enough) that the pope's charity is not environmentally related. Apologies if this comment is kind of wishy-washy. Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved it to footnotes.

• "DiCaprio is agnostic." Feels out of place in its current location, tagged on at the end of the first sentence. If there's nowhere else to put it, so be it, I guess. One idea, though, if there is enough info in your sources, would be to possibly flesh it out into a short paragraph of its own? Just a thought.

I have added another sentence before that which I think connects the whole paragraph well.

• "In June 2017, DiCaprio returned an Oscar won by Marlon Brando, together with other artifacts he received from business associates at Red Granite Pictures as his 38th birthday gift, to the US government amid an investigation into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal." This is confusing. It feels like there is a whole lot of unstated background here, and the context of what DiCaprio's action means is unclear. I suggest possibly removing this sentence or finding a way to make it clearer.

I have added some more background info which I think should now help with understanding it better.

• "DiCaprio has described his relationship with the director as "pretty much a dream come true for me", and admires his knowledge of cinema, crediting him for teaching him the history and importance of cinema." Maybe good to avoid repetition of "cinema" if possible.

OK, I've finished my first read-through. Will try to get a second read-through in soon. Moisejp (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have resolved these ones as well and look forward to your second read-through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your last batch of changes look good. Moisejp (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Starting second read-through:

• "His parents separated when he was a year old; while he lived mostly with his mother, his parents agreed to live next door to each other so as not to deprive DiCaprio of his father's presence in his life.[10][11] DiCaprio and his mother lived in multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while his mother worked several jobs." Did his father move around to be next door to them in each of the multiple neighborhoods where DiCaprio lived with his mother? (It seems unlikely (?), but it's not clear from the present wording.) Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Should be okay now I think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've finished my second read-through and support on prose, and from having spot-checked a number of sources. (One minor thing is I don't think ref 18 mentions Ellen Barkin—unless I missed it—but that should be easy to find elsewhere.) Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• I believe Parenthood is a sitcom not a soap opera so I would change this sentence (In the early 1990s, he played recurring roles in various television series, such as the soap opera Parenthood.) to better reflect that.
• I believe it should be "at that point" for this part (which became the highest-grossing film to that point).
• I would clarify that Greensburg is a documentary series in this part (and the television show Greensburg (2008–2010)).
• I am not entirely certain about what you mean by "a brief setback" in this part ( After a brief setback, DiCaprio starred in two critically acclaimed films in 2002). Could you provide some explanation?
• I am not sure about using the category "American male soap opera actors" when he has only acted in one episode of one soap opera. It does not seem like enough of a defining characteristic for inclusion.
• I think the Hallstrom image caption should have a period as it is a full sentence.
• I have a question about this sentence (Later that year, he became a recurring cast member on the successful ABC sitcom Growing Pains). Is there any reason to include ABC in the description? You did not refer to the networks for the descriptions of the previous television shows DiCaprio appeared in so this one seems out of place to me.
• It is not required, but it might be nice to put the references for this part (DiCaprio is considered one of the most talented actors of his generation.) in numeric order.
• I do not think "late" is needed for this part (Late film critic Philip French).

The reason I included "late" is because I have used present tense for the most part in that paragraph, and here I use past tense as the critic is dead. I thought it would explain the usage of past tense.

Thank you for the response. I would still recommend removing it though. You do not put this descriptive phrase in front of Roger Ebert, who is also dead, and I would argue that the word "late" goes against Wikipedia:Euphemism. I think everything in that paragraph should be in past tense for consistency with the rest of the article where past tense is used to talk about critics' views and reports (like: Roger Ebert praised DiCaprio's "fully-realized, subtle and persuasive performance, hinting at more than Hoover ever revealed, perhaps even to himself."). Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I prefer using present tense when describing a general overview of an actor, I don't like to justify using past tense in prose ("late film critic") so I have done as you suggested. I have now used past tense where appropriate. FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for being a pain about this. If other editors prefer the present tense, then feel free to revert the article back to that. I do not have much experience with these types of articles. I primarily disagree with "late" due to Wikipedia:Euphemism and I just do not find it particularly helpful, but that is just my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Like I said, I also didn’t like to use late just to justify my usage of past tense. To be fair, late doesn’t sound too encyclopedic either so I do agree with your suggestion. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• The article is included in the Vegetarians category, but I do not see any mention of this in the actual prose.

I hope my comments are helpful. I have noticed the above points during my first read-through. You have done a wonderful job with the article (as expected given your track record). Once my points are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to see if I can find anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba. Your comments are most appreciated - I have done as suggested for the most part except where I have noted otherwise. Looking forward to your next read-through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad that I can help. I will read through the article again sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this sentence (He is known for starring in biopics and period films, and for playing unconventional roles.). I am assuming that the first part about the biopics/period films is referring to this sentence (He is drawn to parts based on real people, and stories told in specific periods.) in the body of the article. I am uncertain if that really supports the statement that he is known for appearing in these types of films. I read the sentence from the body of the article as referring to his personal preference, not what people (critics or the general public) connect him with as an actor. Apologies if I am missing another sentence that supports this.
• It may be helpful to update the part about the eco-friendly Belize resort. For instance, according to this article from BBC News], the resort is set for a 2020 opening.

These are the last two things that I have noticed after re-reading the article. Once both comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have tweaked the lead which is now more in accordance with the main body, and also added the Belize resort. Thank you again for your comments. They have been most helpful. FrB.TG (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the prompt response. I have two more quick comments/questions: Belize is not wikilinked twice in the article. On the same topic, wouldn't it be more cohesive to have all of the Belize information in one spot as they are all referring to the same point? Right now, the information is split between two sections. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Should be okay now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "and he has ranked eight times in annual rankings of the world's highest-paid actors." ranked/rankings. I would say "placed" perhaps rather than "ranked".
• "His films have earned $7.2 billion worldwide," do we want to put an "as of year" in there?
• "DiCaprio subsequently earned nominations " I might delete "subsequently" since the parenthetical years make it clear all this is later than 2002.
• "DiCaprio is the founder of the production company Appian Way Productions, which has produced some of his own films" I might consider striking "own".
• "DiCaprio's father is of Italian and German descent, and the actor is hence conversant in Italian." I would strike the "hence". People often don't speak the languages of their ancestors.
• The sentences about his maternal grandparents could probably be combined.
• The first few sentences of the final paragraph in "Early life" could use some dates.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have mostly done as suggested. As for your last comment, sources unfortunately do not state when exactly it happened that he was asked to change his name or that he was jobless for years. FrB.TG (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• " One of the stunts he performed on the show was going fishing in a small pool of water by catching the fish only with his teeth." I would change to " One of the stunts he performed on the show was fishing in a small pool of water, catching the fish using only his teeth.
• "A teenage DiCaprio was cast by the producers to appeal to the younger female audiences, but the show's ratings did not improve and he left it soon after.[34]" I would change "A" to "The". And what does younger mean in this sense? Too young for Kirk Cameron?
• "he film grossed only $0.34 million against its €6-million budget.[44]" I don't see figures expressed as "$0.34 million" so often (the leading zero with the million). I would suggest "$340,000" with an "about" if needed.
• "DiCaprio initially had doubts about playing the character," I would suggest "DiCaprio initially had doubts about accepting the role of Jack Dawson" with "role" changed to "part" or similar later in the sentence.
• "and favored the lead role in The Beach instead.[67] " Suggest "took" for "favored".
• "a young leader of the Irish faction," maybe "A young leader of an Irish-American street gang"? Or similar?
• "he was interested to find" maybe "he was interested in finding"
• "Both the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild nominated DiCaprio twice in the Best Actor category for both of his 2006 features" You could probably get rid of the word "twice" if you changed "both" (following "category for") to "each".

Through the start of the 2010 section. More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

All done. FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• "collaborative streak" Sounds not very encyclopedic.
• "He played Edward "Teddy" Daniels, a U.S. Marshal investigating a psychiatric facility located on an island, but comes to question his own sanity. " I would change "but" to "who"
• "drew toward the project" Not sure what this means.
• " Filming proved to be a traumatic experience for DiCaprio, as he had nightmares of mass murder during production.[117] " This seems a bit of a non sequitur (I imagine it has something to do with the plot)
• " which means he receives money coming directly off the top of ticket sales. maybe "meaning he received a percentage of cinema ticket sales."
• " This risk paid off, as DiCaprio earned $50 million from the film to become his highest payday yet.[126]"" I might change "This" to "The" and omit "to become" in favor of "becoming", with a comma right before after "film".
• "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as a plantation owner Calvin Candie in Quentin Tarantino's spaghetti western," either omit the "a" or put commas either side of "Calvin Candle"
• "extenuate" A word that is a bit simpler perhaps, to aid in understanding.
• I'm seeing enough surplus or missing articles (such as "a" that you might want to give the article a look-through to see if I've missed anything.
• " He also learned to shoot a musket, build a fire, speak two Native American languages (Pawnee and Arikara) and ancient healing techniques.[160] " I think you need "apply" or a synonym before "ancient" in the final clause, because what you have been using in the clauses is "learned to" and "learned to" doesn't fit "ancient healing techniques".

More soon. Sorry about it being piecemeal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Take all the time you need to finish your review. I have done all the things suggested above I think. I will look for more unnecessary or missing articles as I read through the article again. FrB.TG (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• " Because of his active involvement in these causes, DiCaprio has received praise from environmental groups,[194]" is the portion before the comma really needed? You've just spent several sentences setting forth his credentials on the subject.
• "large yachts has attracted criticism due to their large carbon footprints.[197]" I would strike the second "large". We get it.
• "He chaired the national Earth Day celebration in 2000, where he interviewed Bill Clinton and they discussed plans to deal with global warming and the environment.[199] " I might change "where" to "during which".
• "at Russia's tiger summit." If this was a specific event, and I gather it was, should not caps be used?
• muzhik" should this be italicized?
• "In 2011, DiCaprio joined the Animal Legal Defense Fund's campaign to free Tony, a tiger who has spent the last decade at the Tiger Truck Stop in Grosse Tête, Louisiana.[204] " "has spent" is probably the wrong tense. Personally, I would consider "free" a bit overstated unless a return to the wild without human supervision was in the offing. Same issue with tense in following sentence, I imagine the art auction has concluded.
• "In 2015, he announced on behalf of himself and the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation to divest from fossil fuels.[208] " Could be better phrased.
• "A photograph of John Kerry (left) and Leonardo DiCaprio walking" This seems a bit uninformative for an image caption.
• "A few days later, possibly influenced by this meeting, the Pope said he would act in a charity film.[b] In July 2016, his foundation " The pope's foundation? I imagine not, but Francis is the last "he" mentioned. Also, this paragraph bounces around a bit chronologically.
• "In 1998, DiCaprio and his mother donated $35,000 for a "Leonardo DiCaprio Computer Center" at the Los Feliz branch of the Los Angeles Public Library, the site of his childhood home." As written, this says his home has been converted into a library. I might phrase the ending as "... at the library in Los Feliz, the site of his childhood home", with a pipe to LAPL.
• " During the filming of Blood Diamond, DiCaprio worked with 24 orphaned children from the SOS Children's Village in Maputo, Mozambique, and was said to be extremely touched by his interactions with the children.[217]" The second half of this is a bit POV. Also, why is this under philanthropy?
• "an organization which promotes the image of LGBT people in the media.[219]" I don't see this in the source. All I see is that it's called a "gay rights group".
• Why does the first paragraph of "Personal life" (other than the first sentence) have anything to do with the topic?
• "Wilson was sentenced to prison for two years.[227]" More usual would be "Wilson was sentenced to two years in prison".
• "In 2016, DiCaprio endorsed Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential election.[234]" You could probably rephrase to avoid one of the 2016. He give any cash?
• "In June 2017, when The Wolf of Wall Street producer Riza Aziz was involved in a money laundering scandal, DiCaprio returned an Oscar won by Marlon Brando, together with other artifacts he received from business associates at Red Granite Pictures (co-founded by Aziz) as his 38th birthday gift, to the US government.[235]" This sentence tries to do too much in my view, and it would not be "returned ... to the US government" unless they had it before.
• "beauty lists" I gather from context what this means, but is there a more commonly used term that can be substituted?

That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for such a thorough review. It really helped improve the article a lot. I have attempted to resolve your remaining concerns as well. Let me know what you think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Seems to touch all the bases.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from DAP

Going to give a look at this later this week. DAP 💅 12:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No significant setbacks. The only suggestion I have is to change the informal ‘fame industry’ in “DiCaprio played a self-mocking role in a small appearance in Woody Allen's caustic satire of the fame industry, Celebrity (1998)” to ‘the tabloids’, ‘tabloid journalism’ or something to that effect. Otherwise, happy to support. Fantastic work. DAP 💅 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
• All links are live and working according to the tool.
• Ref #3 "Leonardo DiCaprio meets Pope.." needs author details.
• Ref #4 "Poverty and family split.." needs author and original publication details.
• Ref #8 "Catalano 1997, p. 7–15." Should be "pp" not "p".
  • This is still outstanding. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Ref #11 "Wight 2012, 141–148." Needs "pp". Same with refs #16, #17, #24, #27, #33, #34, #53, #244 for the same source (some need a "p", not "pp".)

I have used Kindle to access some of those books which don't have page number but "loc" (which display as "p"). So some those sources are really "loc" and not the actual page numbers.

Okay, that seems reasonable. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ref #38 "This Boy's Life movie review.." link Roger Ebert as the author, and tidy up the title.
• Ref #47 "Total Eclipse (1995)" needs publisher details.
• Ref #54 "Titanic. Man Overboard" does not need page numbers.
• Ref #60 "Love story that won.." correct the title.
• Ref #69 "American Psycho.." needs author details.

I failed to find the name of the author for this one.

Nisha Gopalan; the Guardian often use odd bylines, here it starts "Nisha Gopalan traces the troubled passage of Bret Easton Ellis's novel from page to screen". Harrias ^talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ref #74 "A glimpse of Leo.." needs author details.
• Ref #76 "Catch Me If You Can" swap the links, as the original just goes to a landing page.
• Ref #84 "Leonardo DiCaprio: Ranking.." needs author and date of publication details. Note that these differ between the direct url and the archive.
• Ref #93 "Leonardo DiCaprio's ten.." what makes The National Student a reliable source?
• Check through to #120, more to follow. Harrias ^talk 13:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Ref #125 Empire is missing a title.
• Ref #136 "Leonardo DiCaprio talks Django.." add a publication date of December 18, 2012.
• Ref #137 "Quentin Tarantino's 'Django.." need author and date of publication details. The Hollywood Reporter should also be listed as a website or news source, not publisher.
• Ref #146 "The Great Gatsby Review." Be consistent about the publisher; this uses "RogerEbert.com", while previously it has just been "Roger Ebert".
• Ref #150 "Toldja.." needs author details.
• Ref #152 "Leonardo DiCaprio Talks.." needs author details.
• Ref #155 "Golden Globes 2014.." needs author details.
• Ref #160 and Ref #162 both seem to be the same. "Leonardo DiCaprio, Alejandro G. Inarritu Open Up.."
• Ref #164 "Review: 'The Revenant'" needs author details.
• Ref #168 "The Revenant" needs author details.
  • Still outstanding. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Ref #169 Why do this and ref #192 have ISSNs?
• Ref #171 "DiCaprio-produced.." need author and date of publication details.
• Ref #172 "This Is the Most Important.." needs author details.
• Ref #173 "Before The Flood.." add a publication date of October 28, 2016.
• Ref #187 "Leonardo DiCaprio to star.." needs author details.
• Ref #191 "Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin.." needs author details.
• Ref #195 "Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation" needs both a title and a publisher, even if they are the same.
• Ref #199 "Furgang, Kathy, and Furgang, Adam." Is this a book? It needs more details.
  • The short link for this needs fixing. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Ref #201 "Leonardo DiCaprio gets the keys.." needs author details and the title fixing.
• Ref #202 "DiCaprio's Hypocritical.." needs a date of publication.
• Ref #203 "Leonardo DiCaprio has spent.." needs author details. What makes Ukula a reliable source?
• Ref #209 "Leonardo Speaks Out.." needs author and date of publication details.
• Ref #214 "Leonardo DiCaprio Warns.." needs author details.
• Ref #215 "Days After Meeting.." needs author details.
• Ref #217 "Leonardo DiCaprio's Foundation.." needs author details.
• Ref #220 "Madonna Delivers Surprise.." needs author details.
• Ref #226 "Leonardo DiCaprio, the.." needs the author to be reformatted as Last, First.
• Ref #228 "Gisele Bündchen on.." needs author details.
• Ref #229 "Leo and Bar.." needs author details.
• Ref #231 "Green, p. 12." To be consistent, this could do with a year.
• Ref #232 "Leonardo DiCaprio, model.." needs author details.
• Ref #238 "Hollywood Gives Hillary.." needs author and date of publication details.
• Ref #239 "Leonardo DiCaprio turns over.." I can't see why this has "hermesauto"?
• Ref #245 "Successful Hollywood.." If we are going to list staff writers, then a lot more of the references will need details adding. I would recommend removing it from here.
• Ref #251 "Q&A: Leonardo.." needs author details.
• Ref #253 "The 100 Sexiest.." needs author details.
• Ref #255 "A Powerfully Complex.." needs author details.
• In the book sources, be consistent about whether you list the location, and link the publisher or not.
• More detail is required for Green, Matt. Celebrity Biographies.
• Only a year, not a specific date is required for book sources: Wight, Douglas (April 2, 2012). Leonardo DiCaprio.

That's the lot. Harrias ^talk 15:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Harrias, thank you for the source review. I have attempted to resolve all of them. FrB.TG (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Great work. A couple outstanding still, or I have queried further. Nothing major. Harrias ^talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops! These ones should be okay now as well. FrB.TG (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. Harrias ^talk 07:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: can we close this please? It’s been open for so long; I’d like this to wrap now. FrB.TG (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• MOS:LQ. This is correct:

Scorsese, on his part, has said, "Leo will give me the emotion where I least expect it and could only hope for in about three or four scenes. And he can do it take after take."

This is not:

• Of his success, DiCaprio says, "My attitude is the same as when I started. I feel very connected to that fifteen-year-old kid who got his first movie".

Please check throughout; there are other instances.

• I re- checked a few instances of logical quotation, and found them to be OK now. I don't have time to check every instance, so will leave this unstruck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• The two quotes in blue quote boxes might be more effective/enduring if the reader had a date associated with the comment.

• It does not appear that reviewer above checked for reliability of sources used.

The reviewer did in fact question the reliability of some dubious sources which I quickly replaced. FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• ?? He ended the 2000s by producing the psychological horror thriller film Jaume Collet-Serra's Orphan (2009) -- >> He ended the 2000s by producing director Jaume Collet-Serra's psychological horror thriller, Orphan (2009)

• Ugh, "subsequently". DiCaprio's parents met while attending college and subsequently moved to Los Angeles. Moved to LA after college? After they met?

• Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio did not know how to behave on set; he subsequently applied a strict mentoring style and was satisfied with how DiCaprio changed after filming finished.
  • DeCaprio changed after filming finished? What does "subsequently" add? so he applied a strict mentoring style? And said after filming finished that he was satisfied?
    • Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio did not know how to behave on set so he applied a strict mentoring style and saw improvements in him. --> Perhaps: Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio did not know how to behave on set; he applied a strict mentoring style that he said resulted in improvements in DiCaprio's behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Prose redundancies, and repetitive wording, check throughout, samples:
  • When he was two, he went to a performance festival with his family where he went up on stage and started dancing to a cheerful response from the crowd, which he loved. Went to, went up on ... try to vary the wording. Went on stage and danced ?
    • Now we have: At the age of two at a performance festival, he went on stage and danced spontaneously to a cheerful response from the crowd, which he loved. At ... at ... "loved is non-specific" ... still awkward. If you could put a quote here of what the source says I might offer suggestions. When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously; the cheerful response from the crowd ... started his interest in performing? ... foreshadowed his later interest in acting ? Something better than "he loved". SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• • When his older stepbrother Adam Farrar earned a check of $50,000 for a television commercial, DiCaprio, fascinated with this, also decided to become an actor
    • The redundancy is now removed, but could we not hear he has a stepbrother earlier in the section (is that his mother's or father's son) when the parents are introduced. Does Adam Farrar meet notability? If so, he should be red-linked; if not, why is he named? Can we say earlier that he has a stepbrother, his (mother or father's son), who also is/was an actor (??), and does he need to be named? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure mentioning earlier that he has an actor stepbrother would necessarily add anything. The mention of his stepbrother was simply because the fat amount of money he earned for an ad was the cause of DiCaprio's determination to become an actor as well. It could've very well been anyone else. He does not necessarily meet notability and so, as you say, does not need to be named. FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

But we have to mention his stepbrother to introduce the $50,000, and at the point we introduce him, the reader is left wondering where he came from. It seems that at least his name may not be needed, but that he exists should be mentioned earlier, so the $50,000 story works. (Please leave lines between each major point to help out my old eyes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• After pleading guilty in 2010, Wilson was sentenced to two years in prison --> Wilson pled guilty and was sentenced in 2010 to two years in prison. (Unlikely she was sentenced before she pled.)
• DiCaprio dated German fashion model Toni Garrn from July 2013 until December 2014, and briefly reunited in 2017. They briefly reunited?

Not sure what's odd about "reunited", but revised. FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• From a benefit "11th Hour" fine art auction he organized in 2013, he raised nearly $40 million towards his foundation. --> he raised or the benefit raised? towards his foundation or for his foundation? The "11th hour" fine art auction he organized in 2013 raised nearly $40 million for his foundation?
  • Now we are beginning a sentence with a number: "11th Hour", a benefit fine art auction he organized in 2013, raised nearly $40 million for his foundation.
    • Now we have faulty punctuation: A benefit "11th Hour" fine art auction he organized in 2013, raised nearly $40 million for his foundation. How about: He organized a 2013 benefit, "11th Hour", that raised nearly $40 million for his foundation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NBSP needed between 40 million. Similar everywhere. Also between 11 and academy awards, samples only, NBSP work needed.
  • See my sample edits; more WP:NBSP work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Enough for now, these are samples only. I had intended only to look for MOS compliance, but just scanning the page looking for MOS things to check, I am finding too many prose issues. This article is not ready for promotion, and should have a thorough copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to reduce some prose redundancies mainly in these edits. FrB.TG (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have had time to address the other issues I raised (NBSP, Logical quotes, subsequently) let me know and I will re-read the article. On my first pass, I did not read the article-- only highlighted prose issues I noted when checking for MOS compliance. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I forgot to mention that I’ve tried to address other non-prose issues as well. FrB.TG (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks; I will read through tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• See MOS:CURRENCY. Presumably, all $ mentioned in this article are US$. There is one instance of US$ in the body of the article, but it should be defined on the first occurrence (which is in the lead), and removed from the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Table of contents:

2.1 1991–1996: Major projects and breakthrough

2.2 1997–2001: Stardom with Titanic and subsequent setback

2.3 2002–2009: Success with biopics, dramas and producing

2.4 2010–2013: Inception, Django Unchained and further films with Martin Scorsese

2.5 2014–present: Documentaries, The Revenant and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

MOS Layout says, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." FA crit 2b calls for "appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings".

Major projects seem to be all films, so not sure what that wording adds. I am not sure "subsequent setback" is justified, necessary or helpful-- most performers get some negative reviews, and the idea this was a "setback" is not well justified by the text. While "Stardom" is well justified by the sources, I am not sure the "Success with" adds anything, and it sounds POV-ish. Biopics, dramas and producing (noun, noun, verb) is awkward. I am not sure that section heading captures the essence of that period. Naming individual films (other than Titanic, which launched him) is adding length. What do you think about something like:

2.1 1991–1996: Film career launched

2.2 1997–2001: Titanic brings stardom

2.3 2002–2009: Move into film production

2.4 2010–2013: Collaboration with Martin Scorsese

2.5 2014–present: Emphasis on documentaries

I am not tied to any of this wording, rather offering a look at ways you can think about shortening the lengthy section headings.

I re-visited only some of the items above, and will continue tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have implemented your suggestions almost exactly, as I like them better than mine. I'd be interested to know if this can be further improved within the scope of FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm still working; I have not suggested this nomination needs to be withdrawn, if that is what you are asking.  ?? More tonight, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

PS, I was concerned that my suggested headings not lead to a need to move some text between sections; hope you checked that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, I don't like "Film career launched." Sure, "Major projects and breakthrough" isn't much better, but "breakthrough" is used in the heading of some of our celebrity biographies (including GAs and FAs). Maybe go with "Start of film career" or "Beginning of film career"? Also, "Stardom with Titanic" will make readers think that the whole section is about Titanic. So "Stardom after Titanic" crossed my mind. But the stardom did begin with Titanic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, juggling headings at this stage is bound to raise issues like this; again, please don't think my suggestions needed to be taken literally-- they were just ideas for how to shorten convoluted headings, but careful consideration rules over getting it done quickly. How about Titanic and stardom, to avoid the after, brings, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think “Titanic and stardom" could better work for the Titanic subheading. How about “career beginnings” for the 1996 subsection? FrB.TG (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes to both. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• However, DiCaprio and his mother later moved around to multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while the latter worked several jobs. (What is wrong using "she" in place of "the latter" here?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Cumbersome: DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his pregnant mother was looking at a Leonardo da Vinci painting in the Uffizi museum in Florence, Italy, when he first kicked. How about:
  • DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his mother, then pregnant with him, first felt him kick while she was looking at a Leonardo da Vinci painting in the Uffizi museum.

• Why is the Appian Way hatnote at the top of the Career section when it is linked in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Failed verification: "The film grossed only about $340,000 against its €6-million budget,[46] but has been included in the catalogue of Warner Archive Collection.[47]" I went to the source to try to figure out why we have a mix of $ and Euros, but cannot find the budget there. Since we are switching currencies, would it be helpful to the reader to convert the Euros to dollars as of the budget date? Can we avoid the hyphen plus multiple currency by saying "compared to a budget of €6-million ? The reader is given no idea how the second clause relates to the first, or why the "but". Tell the reader why it is significant that it was included in the catalogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Highly anticipated, the film was released to positive reviews and became one of the highest-rated wide release films of 2006. Released ... release ... try to vary the prose to avoid using the same word twice in one sentence. Shouldn't wide-release film be hyphenated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Prose redundancy: The film earned a total of $357 million against its $90-million budget.

OK, here's where I stand overall. I was asked by Ealdgyth to do a MOS review here, and agreed to do so because the article already had five full supports, and I assumed the prose was ready. And still, everywhere I look to check MOS compliance, I am instead finding prose issues. I really do not want to get involved in a line-by-line prose-fixing FAC. It does not seem fair to lodge an Oppose (because much more deficient prose than what I am finding here is getting through FAC every day now), but I would rather leave this review now for the Coords to decide what to do next. I will return in a few days to strike anything that I have raised that has been addressed, but I don't really want to go through the entire article when spotchecks are revealing this many issues. Best of luck here, and I do suggest that future nominations would benefit from finding a collaborator to copyedit, and perhaps another for MOS review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's alright. I wasn't expecting a line-by-line review anyway; it's an extremely time-consuming process. It wouldn't have been unfair to oppose if you feel it doesn't necessarily meet 1a, and it's sad that FAC is filled with badly-written articles. I am very much glad that I drastically improved this article, which was is terrible shape before and which I had been meaning to expand for years. It was indeed a fun project to take on after two years of inactivity on FAC and Wikipedia in general. I don't think it makes sense to keep this FAC running anymore. (@FAC coordinators: !) What I wish would have gone a little differently though was if this review came earlier and not at a point where I was expecting closure. Anyway, I will try to resolve your remaining points as well. There's no reason why this cannot be further improved even if it's not at FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please post to my talk page if I can be of assistance in the future. I am not always around, and I hate those blooming pingie thingies, but even when I am not around, there is a better chance I will see a talk page post than a ping. I am always glad to help if I am available; your hard work to bring this article to an overall good standard is worth it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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