Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo DiCaprio/archive2

Leonardo DiCaprio

 * 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
Been a while since I've reviewed an article here at FAC. Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Lead


 * "As of 2019, his films have grossed over $7.2 billion worldwide" Any update on this?
 * Unfortunately, Box Office Mojo now requires IMDb Pro membership, which I don't have but given the fact that the only major release DiCaprio has had since 2019 was Don't Look Up in 2021, a Netflix film, I doubt the figure has changed drastically.


 * "He achieved international stardom with the romance Titanic (1997), the highest-grossing film to that point," Instead of "to that point", I would suggest "at the time"
 * Done.


 * Early life and acting background


 * "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]" Although some FAs like Jennifer Lawrence work with this sentencing format excellently, for this example; I feel like this is more claustrophobic that what is used on FAs like Philip Seymour Hoffman; and would support seperating the sentence like what is used on Philip Seymour Hoffman (like "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken) and George DiCaprio. DiCaprio's mother is a legal secretary, and his father is an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]"). Also, not only does source 2 not even mention DiCaprio's mother; you should use  for that source.
 * Good catch on the source being dead; the status is now updated. I have divided the sentence in two parts now. As for the WP:OR point, source 10 does mention DiCaprio's mother's name but I get that it should've also been placed where she is named. Anyway, I have added a source for that now. FrB.TG (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]" I feel like it is weird to mention where his parents met after explaining DiCaprio's family's entire ancestral background; when this could be explained earlier on (such as "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California.[1] He is the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2][3] His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]"
 * Good point, now rearranged. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "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.[20]" (This sentence does not need a semicolon) → "When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously, and the cheerful response from the crowd started his interest in performing.[20]"
 * I actually prefer the semi-colon as I like to avoid the repetitive usage of “and” wherever possible, especially when they’re placed in such a close proximity. FrB.TG (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

1991–1996: Early work and breakthrough
 * Acting career


 * "In 1992, DiCaprio played a supporting role in the first installment of the Poison Ivy film series,[41] and was handpicked by Robert De Niro out of 400 young actors to star in This Boy's Life, a coming-of-age drama about the relationship between the rebellious teenager Tobias "Toby" Wolff (DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) and abusive stepfather (De Niro).[22][42]" I feel like this sentence is a little bit long; and should be seperated into two sentences.
 * Split into two. FrB.TG (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead. Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]" → "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead, but Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]"

1997–2001: Titanic and worldwide recognition


 * "With a production budget of more than $200 million, the film was the most expensive ever made" This record has been beaten by films such as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011), so adding "at the time" to this would be better.


 * "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the same-titled 1939 film." → "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the 1939 film of the same name."
 * All revised.


 * "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but left the project soon after when he failed to agree with Oliver Stone on the film's direction and took the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]" → "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but when he disagreed with Oliver Stone on the film's direction, DiCaprio left the project soon after; taking the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]"

2002–2009: Venture into film production


 * Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio is linked here as a "see also" link; but is also linked in the "See also" section.
 * Removed from the 'See also' section.


 * "The film received critical acclaim and with a worldwide gross of $351 million, it became his highest-grossing release since Titanic.[82]" The way this sentence is worded makes it sound like Catch Me If You Can made more money than Titanic, when that is obviously not true (given note b); so I think this should be reworded.


 * "Director Scorsese initially struggled selling his idea of realizing the film" given the popularity of Scorsese, I am not sure that the "Director" title is needed.


 * "In 2004, DiCaprio founded the production company Appian Way Productions, a namesake of the Italian road.[30]" I would suggest changing the Appian Way link to be extended to the Italian road.
 * Done. FrB.TG (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In this paragraph, there is "The Aviator (2004)" and "The Insider (1999)", but on "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" the year of release is not specified.
 * I thought it’d be made clear with its premier at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival but I can mention it explicitly.


 * "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck.[91] It was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.[92]" → "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck,[91] which was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.[92]"


 * Mind linking to Rhodesia at "In Blood Diamond, DiCaprio starred as a diamond smuggler from Rhodesia who is involved in the Sierra Leone Civil War."
 * The above two done. FrB.TG (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film" and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[107][108]" This sentence is not cited properly. I would suggest "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film",[107] and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[108]"
 * Done


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to think about going back to adding comments on this review soon, but no vote yet. Realmaxxver (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "DiCaprio was also a creator and an executive producer for Planet Green's Greensburg (2008–2010), a show that takes place in Greensburg, Kansas and is about rebuilding the town in a sustainable way after being hit by the May 2007 EF5 tornado; it ran for three seasons.[113]" suggest changing it to "DiCaprio was also a creator and an executive producer for Planet Green's Greensburg (2008–2010). It ran for three seasons, and took place in Greensburg, Kansas. It was about rebuilding the town in a sustainable way after being hit by the May 2007 EF5 tornado.[113]"
 * Revised.


 * "Also in 2008, DiCaprio starred in Body of Lies, a spy film based on the novel of the same name. He played one of three agents battling a terrorist organization in the Middle East.[114]" → "Also in 2008, DiCaprio starred in Body of Lies, a spy film based on the novel of the same name; where he played one of three agents battling a terrorist organization in the Middle East.[114]"
 * I prefer the former here because the last mention before saying "he played" is the novel, and it might make one think he "played" the role in the novel. Being split into two sentences removes that ambiguity. Also, I am not sure about that semi-colon after "where". FrB.TG (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "it was Winslet who suggested that both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates" missing word; " it was Winslet who suggested that they both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates"
 * Added

Hi, 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)
 * Yea. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "As both actors had been reluctant to make romantic films similar to Titanic, it was Winslet who suggested that they both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates after reading the script by Justin Haythe, knowing that the plot had little in common with the 1997 blockbuster.[117]" run on sentence.
 * Revised.


 * "Peter Travers found DiCaprio's pairing with Winslet exceptional and was impressed with his multi-layered portrayal of an overwhelmed character, while Marshall Sella of GQ called it the "most mature and memorable performance of his lifetime".[121][119]" same WP:OR issue I mentioned earlier.
 * Changed "exception" to "impressed with" (the source describes their pairing as "could not be better"). This should be closer to what the author means, I think. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was specifically referring to this previous example: "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film" and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[107][108]" (so the sentence above would be "Peter Travers found DiCaprio's pairing with Winslet exceptional and was impressed with his multi-layered portrayal of an overwhelmed character,[121] while Marshall Sella of GQ called it the "most mature and memorable performance of his lifetime".[119]") good change though. Realmaxxver (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I have now placed each reference right next to the end of the individual statements; it should make it easier for the reader now. FrB.TG (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors


 * "Because of the film's plot involving disturbing scenes," maybe this could be simplified to "Because of the film's disturbing scenes,"


 * "Also in 2010, DiCaprio starred in Christopher Nolan's critically acclaimed ensemble science-fiction film Inception.[130]" This starts the same way as a paragraph in the previous section ("Also in 2002, DiCaprio starred in Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York,") so maybe change the wording, like "The same year, DiCaprio starred in Christopher Nolan's critically acclaimed ensemble science-fiction film Inception.[130]"
 * Both done.


 * "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a small break from acting to have some time for himself.[136] He returned to film the following November in Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar (2011), a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover. The film focuses on the career of the FBI director from the Palmer Raids onward, including an examination of his private life as an alleged closeted homosexual.[137]" → "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a small break from acting to have some time for himself,[136] returning to film the following November in Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar (2011). The film is a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover, and focuses on the career of the FBI director from the Palmer Raids onward, including an examination of his private life as an alleged closeted homosexual.[137]"
 * Revised.


 * "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as a plantation owner, Calvin Candie, in Quentin Tarantino's Spaghetti Western, Django Unchained." I think it would be better to word this more passively, like "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as plantation owner Calvin Candie in Quentin Tarantino's Spaghetti Western, Django Unchained."
 * Done


 * "His first was in the role of millionaire Jay Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby," remove the first "in"; "His first was the role of millionaire Jay Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby,"
 * I think the "in" is correct because "his first film was the role of.." doesn’t sound right. FrB.TG (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "In his review for The Hollywood Reporter, Todd McCarthy lauded DiCaprio for fully realizing his character's potential with a carefree performance.[162]" → "In Todd McCarthy's review for The Hollywood Reporter, he lauded DiCaprio for fully realizing his character's potential with a carefree performance.[162]"
 * Revised.


 * "The film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2014. DiCaprio received nomination for the 2015 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special.[166]" The source does not mention that the film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival → "The film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2014, and was nominated for the 2015 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special.[166]"
 * Source added. I have retained the part that says DiCaprio was nominated, as it would not directly be clear that he was also a nominee since he was "just" an executive producer. FrB.TG (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "Mark Kermode of The Guardian wrote DiCaprio shone with a performance that prioritizes physicality over speech,[173]" I think there is a missing word; "Mark Kermode of The Guardian wrote that DiCaprio shone with a performance that prioritizes physicality over speech,[173] "
 * Added.


 * "In 2016, he was an executive producer for The Ivory Game and Catching the Sun;[179][180] produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change;[181] and produced the crime drama Live by Night. The lattermost received largely unenthusiastic reviews and failed to recoup its $65 million production budget.[182]" → "In 2016, he was an executive producer for The Ivory Game and Catching the Sun;[179][180] and also produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change.[181] He also produced the crime drama Live by Night, which received largely unenthusiastic reviews and failed to recoup its $65 million production budget.[182]"
 * Done.


 * "In 2020, DiCaprio served as an executive producer for The Right Stuff, a television series adaption of the 1973 namesake book. The series had been in development at National Geographic for three years but was moved to Disney+ for a release in October.[194]" → "In 2020, DiCaprio served as an executive producer for The Right Stuff. A television series adaption of the 1973 namesake book, the series had been in development at National Geographic for three years but was moved to Disney+ for a release in October.[194]"
 * That would introduce a repetitive usage of "series" within a close proximity but I’ve simplified the sentence. FrB.TG (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "a risk that has led to failed films like The Beach (2000),[49] but also to his several successful collaborations with Martin Scorsese.[218][219]" already linked
 * De-linked.

I am done with the review now. Support. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support by Aoba47
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 look forward to it. As for the article's size, I don't think we need to worry much considering how selective DiCaprio is in his choices of roles but I see your point. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. I do not think it is anything to worry about right now. It was just something that came to my mind while briefly looking through the article again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion about this sentence: Disillusioned at this, he initially decided to quit acting, but his father encouraged him to further explore his creative side, introducing him to underground art and art in general. Since the following sentence uses two citations, I'd put a citation for this one to be very clear about what is used to support this information. I am guessing it is citation 28, but I think further clarity would be beneficial.
 * I have some clarification questions about Growing Pains. To be clear, I have not seen this show. Could DiCaprio just quit a show like this as I would have thought there would have been some sort of contractual obligations? Also, the Wikipedia article about the show says DiCaprio was a part of the final season, so is this more the case that the show got canceled and DiCaprio was able to leave because of that?
 * Well, he quit toward the ending of the show, citing "bad writing" as the reason to quit. Had he stayed, he would've appeared in three more episodes. I have tried clarifying it in the article now.
 * I see your point now. I would have thought there would have been some sort of contract requiring him to appear in a certain amount of episodes, but your explanation makes sense. I did a slight copy-edit to the sentence if that is alright with you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks better after the copy-edit. Thank you.


 * For this sentence, The film was a commercial success, grossing $294 million worldwide, I would include the budget so the reader could have a better understanding of how it was a commercial success.
 * I believe this part, DiCaprio liked the experience of working with Pitt, could be shortened to just DiCaprio liked working with Pitt.
 * I have a question about The Crowded Room. Is DiCaprio producing the series starring Tom Holland? I could not find any mention of him or his production company in the source, but I could have overlooked it by accident.
 * Good point. I did some research and nowhere does it mention in any source that he or his production company has any kind of involvement in the film-turned-show.
 * Thank you for further looking into this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I would revise this part, In 2017, Paramount announced that, to Paramount announced in 2017, that. The previous sentence uses "In X year" so I would do something similar to my suggested edit to avoid repetition.
 * Was there any criticism towards DiCaprio's environmental activism, such as him being potential hypocritical with his activism and actual actions and lifestyle? There is one citation used in the article that mentions this in the title.
 * The third paragraph does actually mention that. "However, his use of private jets and large yachts has prompted criticism due to their large carbon footprints."
 * Apologies for missing that. That was the information that I had in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a question about this part, but he has been the subject of several articles detailing his involvement with women aged 25 or younger. The note only mentions the jokes made about his dating habits, but have there been more serious criticism of DiCaprio dating younger women?
 * Added further sources that criticize him as a misogynist and commitment-phobic person.
 * Thank you for including this information in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 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)
 * Thank you for your comments,, they have been most helpful. Where I haven't stated otherwise, I have done as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there is any more to be done and if I can return the favor by reviewing one of your works here. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I really enjoyed reading this article again and you have a very good job with writing a solid article about a very famous individual with a long career. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed reading his article again. I’ll definitely review your FAC in a day or two. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, and thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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 &#183; c)  buidhe  08:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14
Placeholder. Going to review soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * – Perhaps it would be better if "In 1979, at age five, DiCaprdio was removed from the set of"
 * – one would assume as this is 1991 that DiCaprio was a teenager, we can probably drop the first mention of teenage to avoid repetition.
 * -- I think “and” before “his mother” should be removed and replaced with comma
 * I think the 'and' is well justified there since the film explores DiCaprio's relationship with his parents, and not the relationship between the three.

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)
 * -- has said that DiCaprio..
 * -- I think “brief appearance” is much suited
 * -- Perhaps you can restructure, the release year in brackets close to 1998 may be confusing for some. Maybe begin with "Also in 1998, DiCaprio was cast"
 * – I think there should be no comma after which
 * -- maybe split with "and"
 * I took care of these except where I have stated otherwise. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. FrB.TG (talk) 21:21, 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)

Drive-by from CPA

 * 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!

 * Lead
 * Could you link Biographical film here?
 * You should also link Los Angeles while you're at it. Much like some small city in West Virginia, it helps for a user to have a reference (even though it's popular)
 * It borders on WP:OVERLINKING, which frowns upon linking popular locations.


 * Since Romeo + Juliet and Titanic are next to each other, and the next portion of the sentence specifies a "highest-grossing film", I'd specify it's the latter.
 * Do you think it'd be better to list Titanic as "the highest-grossing film at the time" or "the third highest-grossing film of all time" (where it currently stands)?
 * I prefer writing its highest achievement in the lede.


 * I'm not 100 percent certain if you are correct or not, but should there be an "organization" after "nonprofit"?
 * You are right. "Nonprofit" is an adjective and should be followed by a noun.

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)
 * No worries. Take your time. Thank you for the review so far. FrB.TG (talk) 19:08, 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.


 * Early life and acting background
 * I'm jealous of this man's name.
 * And to think that an agent wanted to Americanize this man's beautiful name. Thank Goodness he did not agree to it.


 * If you're gonna link German, you might as well link it's first appearance, which is a couple words before it.
 * Well, the first instance of "German" refers to his heritage, while the second one is linked to the language. De-linked anyway, per WP:OVERLINKING.


 * "When his stepbrother earned $50,000 for a television commercial, DiCaprio, fascinated with this, decided to become an actor" -> "His stepbrother earned $50,000 for a television commercial, which fascinated DiCaprio and helped him decide to become an actor." (less commas)
 * "At the beginning of his career, DiCaprio had difficulty finding an agent and when he did find one, he suggested DiCaprio change his name to Lenny Williams to appeal to American audiences, which he declined to do." This sentence drags on a bit, so I'd suggest a full stop after "finding an agent".
 * Maybe a comma after "a year and a half"?


 * 1991–1996: Early work and breakthrough
 * "what not to repeat" is pretty vague; as in, a role not to play again or a movie not to make sequels out of?
 * "...mischievous on set." In what ways? Now I'm curious...
 * I'd specify that This Boy's Life is a biopic, considering these are what the actor is known for. This movie is a biopic, right?
 * "...Streep's character's troubled son" -> "the troubled son of Streep's character" (less of a mouthful)
 * Wow, this was a fun section to read! Good Job!
 * I'm glad you had fun. :D


 * 1997–2001: Titanic and worldwide recognition
 * "...at the time; and was shot..." - a semicolon with an "and" is gramatically incorrect, so one of them has to be cut. Oooh, choices!
 * Jack Dawson (character) is a redirect and therefore isn't necessary.
 * Bilge Ebiri is mentioned twice within two paragraphs, so the second instance can be shortened to Ebiri since they don't need another full introduction. Speaking of which, is there another reviewer that can be called upon here? These instances are too close in my opinion.
 * "but became a box office success, grossing $180 million internationally." Against what budget? Yeah, says who?
 * Can anything else be said about DiCaprio's roles in The Man in the Iron Mask? There's a critic that praises him, but then the article goes on to say he was the Worst Screen Couple
 * I have added another praising review but added a contradicting conjunction before the part with the Razzi. I found mostly praise for his performance:
 * "DiCaprio ... acquits himself well alongside his more seasoned co-stars and has immense fun with his dual roles, especially the villainous monarch."
 * "Leonardo DiCaprio, delivers a wonderful double star turn in 'The Man in the Iron Mask.' ... DiCaprio’s presence assures a strong opening"
 * "he rivets attention in practically every scene. With captivating ingenuousness, and with a physical beauty that reduces the camera to one more worshipful fan, he fares well in one of his most ill-advised film projects."

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...


 * 2002–2009: Venture into film production
 * Although I don't remember any other instances of this, try to stick with either "biopic" or "biographical".
 * Also mention the budget for Catch Me If You Can, since you seem to hop between the two and I feel mentioning it is better than not.
 * This is more of a general comment, but a lot of these prose mentions of reviewers seem to follow too similar of a format: a thought he was good, and said "[direct quote, usually about how talented and sexy he is]". Some cases are small little blurbs of fancy words, and it breaks up the prose in those cases and should rather be paraphrased. Here's some examples:
 * "breezy and charming" - This is a reviewers description of his departure from dark and troubled characters, and I honestly think it's super vague and doesn't give much context.
 * "perfectly watchable"
 * "conspicuously excellent performance" - These are fun words, but are also super vague ones. What did he do that was "conspicuously excellent"?


 * I had to look up "blown-out budgets" to see if it was just "going over budget". This query of mine might just be from my severe sleep deprivation, but it could also appear jargony to other viewers and could be more generalized.
 * "DiCaprio's performance, although well-received, was overshadowed by that of Daniel Day-Lewis according to many critics." This is a good example of what I'd prefer to see over the quotes above. Good sentence, A+.
 * What does obsessive refer to in "obsessive American film director and aviation pioneer Howard Hughes"? Were DiCarpio and Scorsese obsessed with him?
 * "The Aviator became a critical and financial success" - Do the math: there's no math. Against what budget and how much did it make?
 * The 11th Hour? What a nerd.
 * Reuniting with Kate Winslet for another romance drama sounds as if it were a big deal, but it's kind of glanced over. Could you expand this section with budget and box office details, as well as other critical mentions (preferably if they ever compared the two movies together)?


 * 2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors
 * General comment, is there other ways we can spice up this article image-wise? It's great to see all these photos of him, but at the end of the day, they're too similar in my opinion. This man does not age.
 * "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a break from acting to have some time for himself." I'd specify just how long this break was because the article immediately jumps back into other acting ventures.
 * "Although it was poorly received by critics—Mary Pols of Time magazine named it one of the ten worst films of 2011" - But why didn't they like it?
 * "largest and best screen performance, one in which he lets loose as he never has before, is not protective of vanity or a sense of cool and, one feels, gets completely to the bottom of his character" - this is a really choppy quote and was hard to follow along with. Could it be paraphrased or fiddled with to fix this?


 * 2014–present: Focus on environmental documentaries and awards success
 * Once again: what a nerd.
 * "DiCaprio received nomination for a" - "DiCaprio received a nomination for the"
 * I'd link fur trapper (it's a section in the mountain man article)
 * "the eponymous retelling of the legend Robin Hood." The "eponymous retelling" link went under my radar and I couldn't tell what movie it was referring to; maybe do something here that's similar formatting to the Romeo + Juliet instance above it?

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)
 * Thank you for the comments, Panini, especially the ones regarding the unnecessary quotes. I admit I tend to get a little carried away with the number of quotes I use. I have paraphrased a good number of them now. Do let me know if there are others that stick out. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, nine hours of sleep and an additional 3 hour nap and I'm ready to rumble.


 * Reception and acting style
 * "That year, he sued Playgirl magazine over plans to publish a fully nude picture of him." This sentence is mushed between critical opinions, so I'd move it below or after.
 * Moved to the paragraph mentioning his sex appeal.


 * "doing some trick which is pretty mysterious to everyone watching" - Quite confused about this quote, does the reviewer give an interpretation of what it is? Or is this just saying, "He's doing something, I just can't quite put my finger on it..."
 * It's a direct quote from the director but I agree it does not add much. Left that part out.


 * But that's it, really. Again, Good Job!


 * Environmental activism + Misc
 * Please delete this entire section, because global warming is not real and therefore a WP:HOAX. If global warming is real, why is there ice in my drink?
 * "I see people wearing trenchcoats lecturing us on global warming. Irony much? This whole thing is totally made up by the government to scare us."


 * "According to him, he was eager..." The "according to him" here makes it sound like this is his "alleged" story, and other evidence proves otherwise. I think that can be cut down to "He was eager to learn about ecology from an early age..."
 * "and that he is agnostic" - This could be mentioned in the Personal life section. Alternatively, you can leave it, but I would link Agnosticism.
 * Thing is he makes an odd comparison between environmentalism and spirituality, which is why I placed it in that context.


 * "DiCaprio gave a charity donation and spoke about environmental issues" - What did he donate to, and who did he speak to?
 * Whom? To the pope. Donated to what? Unknown.


 * "DiCaprio's foundation..." - Isn't this the DiCaprio Foundation? Why is it referred to as just "the foundation owned by DiCaprio"?
 * "...DiCaprio joined Titanic and Revolutionary Road costar..." - Despite the "costar" here, the way this is formatted makes it sound like he wasn't in these movies. Maybe just "costar" here?
 * I'd link review aggregator

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)
 * I am glad you enjoyed reading it. No apologies needed whatsoever. One week to complete a review is not much compared to how long some take (not complaining as I understand that people are busy). Unless I have claimed otherwise under your points, I have taken on board your suggestions. Thank you again for your review; it really helped the article improve. FrB.TG (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Everything looks clear, so I leave my Support. Great work! Panini! 🥪 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch driving by
You cite Sandler & Studlar 1999 but Sandler and Studlar are only the editors of the book. Rather, the relevant chapter and its author should be cited. JBchrch  talk  04:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

, 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
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.
 * It looks like you're inconsistent about including publisher locations in cite book; none of the books in the sources section include locations, but you do have a location for Marani's Leonardo da Vinci. Any reason why that book is embedded in a ref when all the other books cited are in the sources section?
 * I tend to avoid using sfn when I use the book source only once. But here are many others which I also have only used once (and they are under sources) so done as the rest. As for publishers' locations, I’ve added those wherever available.


 * Can we get a page range for the chapter by Nash & Lahti in Sandler & Studlar (1999)?

Other points, added as I find them.
 * I'm working my way down the list, checking that URLs are working; I'm not doing spotchecks, but I did see something I want to ask about. Your note [a] says the da Vinci mentioned "must have been one of" the three in the Uffizi, but why couldn't it have been one of the paintings in Milan?
 * Considering his mother was in the Uffizi at the time, it is not possible for one of the paintings she looked at to have been in Milan.
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear about what I was asking. I meant that the E! source doesn't mention the Uffizi, or Florence, unless I'm missing something.  It says "DiCaprio got his first name by kicking in the womb while his parents viewed a da Vinci painting at a museum in Italy". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have replaced it with a better source. It says, "Visiting Florence, they stopped by the Uffizi Gallery ... As Irmelin paused to admire a painting by Leonardo da Vinci she felt a strong kick inside her ... She'd name him after the Italian genius." FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The archive link for FN42,, isn't working for me.
 * For FN67, your title is "Was Leonardo Robbed?", but both the current and archived link are titled "Leonardo DiCaprio: Robbed of a Titanic Nomination?"
 * FN82: archive link is not working.
 * FN 87: For Ebert's review you cite the Chicago Sun-Times as the source; I know he reviewed for them but I don't know for sure that everything on his website appeared in the paper, or that the date on the website is the date of publication in the paper if it did appear. I think it would be better to cite to the website itself.
 * FN 112: archive link is not working.
 * FN 135: is no web link available?
 * Unfortunately not.


 * I'm curious to know why you're citing The Hindu for his awards? Seems like there must be more natural sources.
 * The Hindu is a reliable source per WP:RSP but replaced with one from The Guardian.

Link validation done through FN180 (this version); will continue probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I addressed your concerns in these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

More:
 * FN 197: the archive link doesn't work.
 * FN 228: the archive link isn't working.
 * FN 233: the article doesn't seem to mention DiCaprio -- I assume this is intended to cite that he was on the list of highest paid actors for 2013?
 * You would need to click on the gallery to see the complete list and slide through. It now directly links to DiCaprio's earnings that year.


 * FN 253: the archive link works, but I don't see any mention of DiCaprio there.
 * Unfortunately, I could not find any reliable source listing the nods that year, so I have removed it. Considering the number of many high-profile awards DiCaprio has won, it should not affect the article's comprehensiveness.


 * FN 257: the archive link isn't working.
 * FN 276: the Twitter link isn't working.  The archive link is working, so not necessarily a problem, but since I am under the impression that tweets stay linkable unless someone deletes them, can you confirm there's no error in the link here?
 * It's not working for me but the Instagram source should be okay to cite that claim.

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)
 * FN 307: the archive link is not working.


 * What makes Cowspiracy] a reliable source? And unless I'm missing something the linked page doesn't support everything it is used to cite; perhaps other pages on that site should be cited, if it's reliable?
 * It's the official website for the film and it is only used to cite information about the film itself so it should be fine IMO.

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.
 * Exactly, they aren't used to make any contentious claim.

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)
 * Thank you for your review. All of your concerns should be addressed now. FrB.TG (talk) 15:57, 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)

, 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

 * 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)

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 as mentioned below, and, possibly, your response to them.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by review by Amakuru

 * "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  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 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 &mdash; 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, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 &mdash; 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)
 * How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , hi sorry to bother you but any update on this? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. I'm finding it very hard to fit much editing time in at present, so you'll have to bear with me if I'm absent again. Just for the record I would probably oppose promotion as things stand unfortunately, just because I think the prose needs work - it is fixable though. Obviously given my potential inability to commit to combing the whole article, and the support !votes above, it's up to the coords what to do if I end up absent for a long time again!
 * Back for some more points


 * "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 &mdash; 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
Placeholder; 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 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 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, "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 "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 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
Coming 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.” 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, which can be accessed at the archive link above . 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)


 * ”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.” 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." 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.” 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. 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” 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.” 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  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” 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” . 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)
 * 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 '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, . 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)

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)

Support by Moisejp
Hi FrB.TG, hope you've been well! I meant to jump in and review this in January but have been off the grid the last few months. :D Since this hasn't been promoted yet, it gives me a chance to review now. I supported in the first FAC in 2019 and am happy to support again now on prose and comprehensiveness. I have read through it twice and made several small suggested edits. My only remaining minor suggestion is in the last two sentences in Philanthropy, "According to the news agency Associated Press, this amount was inaccurate" feels a bit awkward linked with the rest of the content in the second sentence; I suggest tying it to what's in the first sentence instead. Also ref 285 supporting this bit seems superfluous as it just repeats word-for-word part of what is in ref 284. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)