Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo DiCaprio/archive2
- 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2022 [1].
- Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Comments Support from Realmaxxver
edit
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)
Support by Aoba47
editResolved 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)
- Thank you for the message and ping. I can understand and agree that the misogynist criticism is rather extreme, but I do think it is odd for a man in his 40s to be consistently dating women in their early 20s (particularly given the power dynamic and parasocial aspects) but that is just my personal opinion. I only asked about it in my review as it was something that I thought about while reading the article. I agree that the sources for these claims are not the best, and I would be okay with losing them if other editors disagree with their inclusion. I would highly doubt that DiCaprio's personal life is notable enough for a separate article, when compared to others like Lindsay Lohan.
- I have not worked on a lot of BLPs so I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to really say what relationships are notable enough for inclusion. I would just hope that there is a clear cut reason and rationale for why certain relationships are covered over others (i.e. the significance in his life, the coverage in reliable and third-party sources, etc.). Apologies for the long response. My main point is I will defer to more experienced editors/reviewers and this should not change my support of this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't watch movies so this guy's habit of dating much younger women is pretty much the only thing I know about him. Like Aoba, I believe it merits a mention in the article—not using any labels necessarily but just stating the publicly known facts. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Support from Pseud 14
editResolved 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)
|
- Satisfied with the replies. Relatively minor point in the "Philanthropy" section is how three consecutive sentences start with month/year, beginning with "In 2010, In April 2013, and In 2016", could use some minor tweaks so it doesn't come across as listing dates/events. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. I have tried to vary the sentences. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Satisfied with the replies. Relatively minor point in the "Philanthropy" section is how three consecutive sentences start with month/year, beginning with "In 2010, In April 2013, and In 2016", could use some minor tweaks so it doesn't come across as listing dates/events. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by from CPA
edit- There are MOS:SANDWICH issues in both the 2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors and the Environmental activism sections. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Panini!
editResolved 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)
|
- Everything looks clear, so I leave my Support. Great work! Panini!🥪 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
JBchrch driving by
editYou 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)
- They are ones listed in the place where you normally mention the author(s) so I think they really are the authors and not just the editors. In any case, I do not see any mention of someone else; I would think authors would be listed before editors. FrB.TG (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Have you looked at p. 6-7 of the archive file? Also, it's standard practice for the editors to be listed on the front cover (which says "edited by"). JBchrch talk 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look: you are citing the chapter written by Melanie Nash and Marti Lahti. JBchrch talk 14:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I was not the one having added this source, I do not have access to the book to be able to see the chapter's name (not in the archive file either). Replaced with other sources. FrB.TG (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. It was the page linked from the book's title. Just so you know, if you create an account at archive.org, you can read and "borrow" digital books like this one. JBchrch talk 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- However, it's unfortunate that you replaced Rutgers University Press with news sources. It would be preferable if you accessed the book from the URL and did the proper formatting. JBchrch talk 15:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that invaluable information. Despite being a frequent archive.org user, I did not know you could borrow books like that. I have now restored the Rutgers source with the proper formatting. FrB.TG (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome! JBchrch talk 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that invaluable information. Despite being a frequent archive.org user, I did not know you could borrow books like that. I have now restored the Rutgers source with the proper formatting. FrB.TG (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- However, it's unfortunate that you replaced Rutgers University Press with news sources. It would be preferable if you accessed the book from the URL and did the proper formatting. JBchrch talk 15:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. It was the page linked from the book's title. Just so you know, if you create an account at archive.org, you can read and "borrow" digital books like this one. JBchrch talk 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I was not the one having added this source, I do not have access to the book to be able to see the chapter's name (not in the archive file either). Replaced with other sources. FrB.TG (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look: you are citing the chapter written by Melanie Nash and Marti Lahti. JBchrch talk 14:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Have you looked at p. 6-7 of the archive file? Also, it's standard practice for the editors to be listed on the front cover (which says "edited by"). JBchrch talk 14:27, 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)
Source review
editResolved 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)
Image review
edit- Don't duplicate captions in alt text; if there's nothing different to say, the alt can be simply 'refer to caption'. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:54, 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)
- 1. Yes.
- 2. Waiting for further comments from Amakuru as mentioned below, and, possibly, your response to them.
- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by review by Amakuru
edit- "His father is of Italian and German descent; DiCaprio is conversant in Italian and German" - not keen on the semicolon in the middle of this sentence, a simple "and" would be better. Also not sure if the sources support the assertion exactly. The Italian one simply says that he spoke to the Pope in Italian, which doesn't prove he's "conversant" in it... (perhaps the Daily Mirror source says more, but I can't access that); and the German one says he learned and practised German with his grandmother, but again not really giving his level. Business Insider is also a source whose reliability is often questioned.
- I agree on the Italian bit but a fan keeps insisting on its re-addition. I've removed it until we find a better source that explicitly confirms that he speaks the language. As for German, the Douglas Wight biography explicitly denies this: "Leonardo never really got to grips with the German language" (p. 22) but somehow I missed it in my early research. Business Insider is reliable according to WP:RSP when reporting on culture.
- "In an interview in Russia" - when was this?
- "DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his mother, then pregnant with him, first felt him kick" - feel like this could do with tightening. The "then" seems to refer to a point in time we haven't mentioned yet. Maybe something like "his parents chose the name Leonardo because his pregnant mother felt his first kick while she was looking at..."
- Also not sure note (a) about the paintings should be there. It looks like original research or WP:SYNTH, unless there is a source which says this in connection with DiCaprio specifically.
- The two sentences beginning "his parents separated..." and "For a while though" seem a bit stilted to me... The second almost seems to contradict the first, and leaves the reader wondering when this "while" was that he lived with his father. "to not deprive DiCaprio of his father's presence" and "For a while though" could also be improved for encyclopedic tone IMHO.
- Looking into his biography, it says they lived next door to each other though the newspaper source insists he lived with his father. I trust the biography more as when they lived in the same neighborhood, he lived with his mother. After that, he moved to other LA districts with his mother. So there is no time in between where he lived with George.
- "moved around to multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods" - could be just "lived in multiple..."
- "He went to the Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies" - maybe "He studied at..."?
- "moving onto" - informal tone
- "asked his mother to take him to auditions instead to improve their financial situation" - which kind of auditions, did his mother actually agree to take him to them, and how does this relate to school? Would it be that if he got an acting role he'd drop out of school? Or instead go to acting school?
- Revised. The source does not say whether his mother agreed to it, but considering the next sentence says he dropped out after his third year in high school, I would think he got what he wanted.
- "as he was fond of" - informal tone
- Sourcing points
- If "Refinery29" is a website, should its name be in italics? (I know the article title isn't in italics, but this may be an error)
- Per below.
- This is probably a style I don't know about, but what does "(2003) [2000]" mean?
- In the parameters, 2003 refers to the year the book was published whereas 2000 means the origin year. However, it's a moot point considering the source has been removed.
- Young Artist Award has an article, so could link
- It is already linked in ref. 30. I do it only on the first instance to avoid overlinking.
- Roger Ebert's name is mentioned twice
- That's because he's the author and the publisher.
- Also curious about "Rotten Tomatoes" not being italicized. Maybe websites aren't routinely, but the
website=
parameter at {{cite web}} would imply they should be.
- I usually go with how the Wikipedia article does it. As per MoS, we should italicize newspapers, magazines etc. so unless that is changed in the website parameter, I'll use publisher instead.
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)
- I was mostly inactive in the next two years but I do remember the article going through at least some copy-edit. I asked SandyGeorgia for feedback a few months ago but she did not respond. Thank you for your review. Do let me know if your current comments have been properly addressed and if you find more (major) issues after you look more closely. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- So sorry, I have not been able to keep up, and can't promise to look in here-- depends on progress on other articles. Amakuru, you have me giggling for the second time this year over your use of "brilliant, refreshing prose"; I will explain on your talk :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: thanks for your response here. Given that you seem amenable to discussion on this point, do you mind if I do some copyediting on the article to attempt to improve on some of the prose? I've made a start just now. Obviously feel free to dispute anything I've amended, and we can discuss. This may be more fruitful than my going through raising issues here line by line. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t mind at all. I would be most grateful for any kind of help. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG and Amakuru: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: urggh, forgot about it again! You might have to withdraw your note of appreciation at this rate... I'll try to have another look over the weekend — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Amakuru, hi sorry to bother you but any update on this? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: urggh, forgot about it again! You might have to withdraw your note of appreciation at this rate... I'll try to have another look over the weekend — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG and Amakuru: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t mind at all. I would be most grateful for any kind of help. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Back for some more points
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!
- "At the beginning of his career, DiCaprio had difficulty finding an agent" - why was this?
- No idea. The source does not provide any info beyond this.
- Can we name who the agent was that he eventually found, and how long did he remain with him?
- No source for it, unfortunately.
- "introducing him to underground art and art in general" - a bit unclear to me how this is relevant to his screen career, and why being into art might help with that
- My guess would be because he probably wanted to pass on his knowledge to him and hoped that he'd apply some of it to acting after all acting is art. But it's just that, a guess, and I have no source to provide a reason for why he did what he did.
- "Motivated by his father and the need to financially support his mother, he began acting regularly on television by the early 1990s" - this doesn't seem to fit with the narrative two sentences earlier, in which he did 100 auditions without success. Presumably something else must have changed to enable him to land a role, other than just the "motivation" of his father and the need to support his mother... I think a bit more detail around what was going on here, why he didn't get the 100 roles and what changed, would be useful.
- I have some details on it and will add it later today.
- "who was later convicted of transporting child pornography and sexually abusing a minor" - not sure that this detail is particularly relevant to DiCaprio?
- I'll remove it.
- "Around this time, he was a celebrity contestant..." - slightly surprised by this... was he already a celebrity based on his appearance in Parenthood?
- "In 1991, DiCaprio played an un-credited role in one episode of Roseanne" - I think this would belong better in the previous paragraph, even if that means a section break halfway through 1991. It just looks kind of odd sitting as a standalone sentence and would be more natural for this section to start with his big screen debut.
- "a role he described as" - was this his description at the time, or later?
- "taken in by the Seaver family" - is the name of the family needed?
Cheers for now — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. While all of your concerns are perfectly valid, some of these are due to lack of information from sources so there is nothing I can do about them. Your return will be appreciated but no pressure on you. FrB.TG (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh
editPlaceholder; comments soon Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "That October, DiCaprio joined Mark Ruffalo in North Dakota in support of the Standing Rock tribe's opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline" — The source ([12]) does not mention "North Dakota". What they mention is "Standing Rock", which our article calls " border between North and South Dakota".
- Removed the location altogether since I saw one source say it's in ND and the loc is in the title anyway.
- "In April 2017, he protested against President Trump's inaction on climate change by attending the People's Climate March." — At first instances, we should be mentioning full name of Donald Trump. Rest, source verifies the content. OK
- "While reviews for the film were mixed, critics were unanimous in their praise for DiCaprio's and Lawrence's performances;" — The source ([13]) states "Most applaud the great work the cast led by Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio deliver across all scenes." I don't think "most" applauding should be considered same as unanimous.
- While that statement is true, these kinds of sources are very hard to find so it's normally taken in good faith that the claim is okay since the editor usually checks the prominent sources. It's best to stick to what the source says though.
- "He is drawn to roles based on real-life people and stories told in specific periods." — (#1) The URL in the reference is to /3 page, which does not verify the content. this link does. (#2) As to verify the part, the source does not say that he is "drawn to roles based on real-life people". The best I could find in the source is "You frequently star in films based on real people and events in history, such as ... Why?", which is not DiCaprio's statement, but a question. His frequently being in films based on real people should not be assumed to that he is "drawn" to those roles. Is there something I am missing?
- I'm sure I could find something if I dug deep that says he loves playing these roles but I have adjusted it as per the source for now.
- "DiCaprio endorsed Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential election." — Well, this one is bit too nitpicky, but, the source says " “Please vote this Tuesday,” he said. “Vote for people who believe in the science of climate change.” ". We are indirectly assuming that 'people who believe in the science of climate change' = 'Hillary Clinton'. As the things stand, WP:V is failed for this part, but I'm confident better sources available which explicitly make that endorsement claim.
- Replaced with this one. It says, "Here are some of the other filmmakers who have publicly bashed Trump, endorsed Clinton, or both." and then goes on to list DiCaprio.
- "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck" — I cannot find "first producing task" in the source.
- "Revolutionary Road grossed $76 million against its budget of $35 million" — Per the source ([14]), "Worldwide Box Office: $79,604,820", "Production Budget: $45,000,000 (worldwide box office is 1.8 times production budget)" ??
- Ah, I must've intended to cite this one since the it says $35 million and ~$76 million ($75.9 million).
- "After narrating the 2019 global warming documentary Ice on Fire," — The source ([15]) "In the trailer, the actor narrates: '[...]'". This just establishes the fact that DiCaprio narrated the trailer (to be more precise, maybe just a part of it). I an not saying the statement is wrong, but WP:V is not established.
- Replaced.
- "It broke the record for the most views (153 million hours) in a single week in Netflix history." — The source ([16]) states that it was "152,290,000 hours", much less than 153 million hours.
- Ah, apologies for this one. I think I saw this as 152.92 million instead of 152.29 million and I probably rounded
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)
- Alright, thank you. I apologize for these. Most of them are true statements but I probably should've found better sources for these. FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
JBchrch — further spot checks
editComing up. JBchrch talk 22:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Focusing the problematic spot checks:
- ”DiCaprio's parents named him Leonardo because his pregnant mother first felt him kick while she was looking at a Leonardo da Vinci painting in the Uffizi museum in Florence, Italy.” [17] The source is p. 4, not p. 15
- Funny, for me it shows p. 15.
- Are you reading an ebook such as an epub or an epub-to-pdf? They generally don't map out the print pages, which is why pages have to be controlled with a print version (or a ebook version with the print pages mapped out). JBchrch talk 15:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, as I see, the file starts counting pages from the beginning (cover). FrB.TG (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that the ebook pages are substantially shorter than the print pages. For instance, I see that "Wight 2012, 322" is cited, while the print version ends at p. 277. So the discrepancy cannot be reduced to a set number of pages to be added up to the ebook pages. JBchrch talk 21:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- This happens. It can even happen between editions of print books - eg an expanded introduction is added. So long as the version cited is clear and the referencing to it is accurate it is not an FAC issue - although it can be tricky for reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The version cited is Wight, Douglas (2012). Leonardo DiCaprio – The Biography. London: John Blake Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85782-672-2., which can be accessed at the archive link above ([18]). The referencing to it is unfortunately not accurate, which I think is caused by a print/ebook mismatch. In my understanding, either the pages need to be corrected or the {cite book} needs to be modified. JBchrch talk 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- This happens. It can even happen between editions of print books - eg an expanded introduction is added. So long as the version cited is clear and the referencing to it is accurate it is not an FAC issue - although it can be tricky for reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that the ebook pages are substantially shorter than the print pages. For instance, I see that "Wight 2012, 322" is cited, while the print version ends at p. 277. So the discrepancy cannot be reduced to a set number of pages to be added up to the ebook pages. JBchrch talk 21:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, as I see, the file starts counting pages from the beginning (cover). FrB.TG (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you reading an ebook such as an epub or an epub-to-pdf? They generally don't map out the print pages, which is why pages have to be controlled with a print version (or a ebook version with the print pages mapped out). JBchrch talk 15:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Funny, for me it shows p. 15.
- ”DiCaprio has said his career choice as a child was to become a marine biologist or an actor but he eventually favored the latter, as he liked impersonating characters and imitating people.” [19] In the interview, LDC places the emphasis on getting people’s reactions to his acting.
- Added that part too.
- “Later in 1996, DiCaprio starred in Marvin's Room, a family drama revolving around two sisters, played by Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton, who are reunited through tragedy after 17 years of estrangement. DiCaprio portrayed Hank—the troubled son of Streep's character—who has been committed to a mental asylum." [20] Not seeing the 17 years or the asylum part in the source.
- Usually not all plot points are available in sources so I go for this part of WP:FILMPLOT, "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary". I know it mainly applies to plot summary section but like I said, info about roles (which are also part of a film's synopsis) are not always entirely available as one wants them to be.
- I have cited a book source now.
- “DiCaprio initially had doubts about it, but was eventually encouraged to pursue the part by Cameron, who strongly believed in his acting ability.” [21] Can you give me a quote?
- For some reason, the live link does not show the entire article, which consists of 7 pages. The archived one does though: "Cameron was sold on DiCaprio, but DiCaprio wasn't sold on the part ... Finally DiCaprio signed on and received his first million-plus paycheck."
- “Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret was another documentary film that year for which he was an executive producer—he took part in the new cut released exclusively on Netflix that September. It explores the impact of animal agriculture on the environment. [22] Is the last sentence in the source?
- Not directly, but see my response about the plot summary.
- Added the Netflix link to the film.
- “and suffered hypothermia” [23] In the interview LDC says “possible hypothermia”.
- Removed the hypothermia part.
- “In August 2015, it was announced that Martin Scorsese will direct an adaptation of Erik Larson's The Devil in the White City starring DiCaprio.” [24] The source says that LDC will produce, and that there was plans in the past that he wanted to star in it. However, the source doesn’t state this outright, and additional sources [25][26] confirms that we don’t know whether he will act in it or only produce it.
- Updated the info and source.
- “Although the film failed commercially”[27] I’m seeing an interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source here?
- Replaced with a book source.
- “Budgeted at $90 million, the film grossed $291 million and became DiCaprio and Scorsese's highest-grossing collaboration to that point” [28]. I’m not seeing either the $291M figure or the “highest-grossing” in the source?
- Replaced with two Box Office Mojo sources, one to support the budget and gross and the other for the "highest-grossing" part. It does not explicitly state that but The Departed is listed above DiCaprio's previous collabs with Scorcese (Gangs of New York and The Aviator) in terms of worldwide gross and has the highest figure of the three.
JBchrch talk 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your spot-checks. FrB.TG (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: How do you advise this should proceed? JBchrch talk 15:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for doing this, it is appreciated. You have checked nine citations, from a total of 311, for an article which has already attracted attention to its source to text fidelity with Kavyansh.Singh's comments above. It looks to me as if you had at least minor issues with each of them. Please do correct me if yuo feel that I have misinterpreted any of this. What you need to do now is decide whether or not, based on your sampling, you have faith in the source to text integrity of the 302 cites you didn't check and post that decision here. Sorry, I realise that this is a tough ask. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your input, @Gog the Mild. In all fairness, I have performed more spot checks than what I have listed above, and about half of them, perhaps slightly more, had no issues. However, I still feel like it was too easy to find problems in the sourcing (the above took me about an hour), so I cannot consider this as passed, even after factoring in the FILMPLOT rationale. I think that citing ebooks pages as print pages is a big problem in and of itself, and something that would need to be corrected before passing this as FAC. I'm also inclined to be strict here, because this is a BLP, and one that gets a lot of pageviews. In my view, however, it's not unsalvageable: if the book pages are fixed and if the sources are given a good check to make sure that all of the article's content is strictly verified (excluding the FILMPLOT) parts, this article could get to FAC status at some point. JBchrch talk 21:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to do this, JBchrch. It is really appreciated and I’m glad this issue was brought to light before this FAC was considered for promotion. I’m not entirely sure what happened here though, usually the articles I write have little to absolutely no issues of verifiability among reviewers. So I am going to make sure all the info are accurately represented and easily verifiable. Except for the book sources (which I recently checked myself), I will verify each of the news sources. This shouldn’t take more than a few hours. And after that has happened, I would like to request you to take another look, although that is totally up to you to decide and not obligatory in any way. PS the e-Book has a different ISBN so changing to that should fix the issue here. FrB.TG (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG Thanks for being open to my comments and for agreeing to check the citations. I cannot commit to revisiting the article when you will be done because I'm in the midst of a somewhat unpredictable period, but by all means ping me and if I can then I'll do it. JBchrch talk 04:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to do this, JBchrch. It is really appreciated and I’m glad this issue was brought to light before this FAC was considered for promotion. I’m not entirely sure what happened here though, usually the articles I write have little to absolutely no issues of verifiability among reviewers. So I am going to make sure all the info are accurately represented and easily verifiable. Except for the book sources (which I recently checked myself), I will verify each of the news sources. This shouldn’t take more than a few hours. And after that has happened, I would like to request you to take another look, although that is totally up to you to decide and not obligatory in any way. PS the e-Book has a different ISBN so changing to that should fix the issue here. FrB.TG (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your input, @Gog the Mild. In all fairness, I have performed more spot checks than what I have listed above, and about half of them, perhaps slightly more, had no issues. However, I still feel like it was too easy to find problems in the sourcing (the above took me about an hour), so I cannot consider this as passed, even after factoring in the FILMPLOT rationale. I think that citing ebooks pages as print pages is a big problem in and of itself, and something that would need to be corrected before passing this as FAC. I'm also inclined to be strict here, because this is a BLP, and one that gets a lot of pageviews. In my view, however, it's not unsalvageable: if the book pages are fixed and if the sources are given a good check to make sure that all of the article's content is strictly verified (excluding the FILMPLOT) parts, this article could get to FAC status at some point. JBchrch talk 21:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for doing this, it is appreciated. You have checked nine citations, from a total of 311, for an article which has already attracted attention to its source to text fidelity with Kavyansh.Singh's comments above. It looks to me as if you had at least minor issues with each of them. Please do correct me if yuo feel that I have misinterpreted any of this. What you need to do now is decide whether or not, based on your sampling, you have faith in the source to text integrity of the 302 cites you didn't check and post that decision here. Sorry, I realise that this is a tough ask. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: How do you advise this should proceed? JBchrch talk 15:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Some spot checks from another editor:
- "These included the Best Actor Oscar trophy that Marlon Brando won for his role in 1954's On the Waterfront, a $3.2 million Pablo Picasso painting and a $9 million Jean-Michel Basquiat collage" - source does not mention 1954 or On the Waterfront, only stating that it was an Oscar won by Brando
- "and in 2014, he purchased the original Dinah Shore residence designed by mid-century modern architect Donald Wexler" - source calls it Modernist, not mid-century modern, and our article on Mid-century modern suggests that the two are related but not identical
- "DiCaprio owns a home in Los Angeles and an apartment in Battery Park City" - source says that he "inhabits" it, which doesn't indicate ownership, as it could be a renting situation. Also, this source appears to be from May 2012; likely too dated for this really
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)
- Yes, I haven’t gotten to that section yet, as I’m extensively checking all sources now. The problem here was that before I expanded it, I didn’t check all the existing sources as I thought being at a GA level, it wouldn’t have these problems. I’ll ping once I’ve skimmed through every one of them - it shouldn’t be any later than max. two days. FrB.TG (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Such checks should be done before taking the article to FAC. Hog Farm Talk 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I realize that but sadly I didn’t know that an article at a supposedly quality level would have such issues to begin with. It’s a little naive on my part considering I have written many other FAs before but I’ve never had such issues before. I guess you learn something new every day. FrB.TG (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, a lot of our GA's aren't really GA-quality. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I realize that but sadly I didn’t know that an article at a supposedly quality level would have such issues to begin with. It’s a little naive on my part considering I have written many other FAs before but I’ve never had such issues before. I guess you learn something new every day. FrB.TG (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Such checks should be done before taking the article to FAC. Hog Farm Talk 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Support by Moisejp
editHi 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)
- Many thanks for your edits and support again, Moisejp. I've merged the two sentences per your suggestion. Hopefully, it reads better now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- A little reluctantly I am going to archive this. There is not a consensus to promote after three months and there seems to be agreement that the article was not ready for FAC when it was nominated and possibly still isn't. I would encourage the nominator to work through the citations to ensure that they are all up to scratch and look forward to seeing this back at FAC. There will be the usual two week hiatus re further nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 10:37, April 12, 2022 (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.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.