Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: My76Strat (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the review of this article and anticipate that I will append comments below as appropriate. I do welcome all constructive involvement that will likely ensue. And I thank everyone who has contributed to making this article "good". From here, the Good Article Criteria will govern my expectations, and guide my determination regarding this article, and its designation as "GA" class.

• I am not seeing the second reference as substantiating every fact where it is cited inline. Please review if it is the best reference in each place where it is used. Currently it is confusing the facts more than verifying them. My76Strat (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no issues here. My76Strat (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In these sentences, "Lundgren claims that his father was physically abusive and vented his frustration on his wife and oldest son. He claimed that during his tirades, his father would call him a "loser", which motivated him later as he wished to prove himself and grew more ambitious.", the word claim and claimed exist as an expression of doubt. Consider "Lundgren said" or "Lundgren states" and rather than "He claimed", again, "He said" or "He asserts", or some other variation which directly attributes the thing said without the expression of doubt. My76Strat (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In this sentence, "His lines "If he dies he dies" and "I must break you" are amongst the best known of the Rocky series and are widely cited in popular culture.", the term "widely" is a weasel word and exaggerates how often the catch phrases are actually in use. Unless you can cite "widely" and attribute a source, the adjective adverb should be dropped. My76Strat (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Should not this sentence; "...dealing with a al-Qaeda esque terrorist organization...", be "an al-Queda esque"? My76Strat (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several examples where the serial comma is sometimes used, and sometimes not. Its use, or abstinence should be consistent throughout the article. Please search the word "and" to find some of these inconsistencies. My76Strat (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples include: the first sentence, "...Swedish actor, director, and martial artist." where the serial comma is used, followed by the next sentence; "...Chuck Norris, Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme.", where the serial comma is omitted. Here is another omission, "...Jason Statham, Jet Li and Mickey Rourke." while this demonstrates positive use. "...The Mechanik (2005), Missionary Man (2007), Command Performance (2009), and Icarus (2010)..." The guidelines here outline the desire to maintain consistency with regard to the desired preference. Currently, I can not tell whether its use is intended as a preference or not. It is only applicable where three or more items are joined by the conjunction. My76Strat (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The presentation of the subjects name is confusing. The quotations around "Dolph" are not clear. Was he born Hans Dolph Lundgren? Or was he born some other name, and is better known by his stage name? I think you can present this name with more clarity, or at least insert a footnote. IMO My76Strat (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Lundgren is his birth name, usually given at the beginning of the intro. Fixed♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In this sentence, "...sent on a mission as GR operatives.", the acronym GR jumps out of the prose having never been introduced. It engenders a pause in the reading, where the interested reader must research its meaning. Consider a less ambiguous way of describing the operatives. My76Strat (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This to my knowledge is unknown. There is even a forum here about it. It would be original research if I tried to guess what GR stood for. They are simply known as GR operatives. Could be "Genetically Recreated" I don't know.

The only possible way is to at some earlier point, enunciate that they are members of an elite group known as GR-13, and considered GR operatives. And then later when you state their being sent on a mission as GR operatives, the term will have a clearer meaning. My76Strat (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 2 times his birthday is mentioned, once in the lead, and once in the infobox. One of these should be referenced; I recommend where it occurs in the infobox to maintain the lead as free of clutter as possible (which it is). My76Strat (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Intro is not cluttered, it effectively summarizes the article as it should do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Whenever a number is integrally linked by a space, as in this example: "He's a hulking 261 pounds of merciless fighting machine, the best that Soviet science & medicine can create", the space should be a non-breaking space as outlined here. My76Strat (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Contractions should be expanded unless they are part of a quote. This example, "Although Sky Movies remarked that Lundgren isn't exactly Clint Eastwood..." should be expanded or clarified as a quote. My76Strat (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed first part, kept only quotes.  Fixed♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In this sentence, "He sent off videos and pictures of himself to a distant contact of Sylvester Stallone which eventually got through to him and Lundgren tried out for the role.", "the role" is not clear. It is not until later that the role is further identified and should be enunciated more clearly. IMO My76Strat (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That "he became a bodyguard for Grace Jones" is introduced in the lead but not included in the article body. The lead is for summarizing facts which are expounded in the body and not specifically to introduce stand alone facts. If the fact is to stand alone within the lead, it should be referenced there. My76Strat (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Please read more carefully. It says he was hired as a bouncer in a Sydney night club where he spotted and became one of Jone's entourage. Meaning bodyguard. If you wish me to mention bodyguard I will do so but this is what I mean by one of Jone's entourage. I have changed the word entourage to bodyguard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead states, "They (him and Grace Jones) moved together to New York City to pursue acting,...", whereas the body indicates it was a developing relationship which prompted the move and the decision to pursue acting was a subsequent consideration. Please remove ambiguity to this regard in relation to the sources. My76Strat (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of both, they fell in love and Jones tried to get him into acting. I'll try to clarify. Fixed♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling. The article contains this example, "...in the action film The Expendables, which opened in theatres on August 13, 2010.". and this example, "2010 marked his return to theaters with The Expendables...", which shows that both are sometimes used. There are also examples where conversion templates take information from American standard notation to its metric equivalent as in this example, "...the film was shot and weighed 245 pounds (111 kg) at his heaviest. However, in the film he was billed at 261 pounds (118 kg)...", compared to this example, "Lundgren stood around 195 centimetres (6 ft 5 in) and weighed 111 kilograms (245 lb)." These expression should consistently be converted in one direction, and deference should also be consistent with the preferred manner of spelling. My76Strat (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I'd prefer pounds first.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The following references: 8, 44, 99, 108, and 112 are dead links. Please correct the url, or discontinue citing the reference with an invalid url. My76Strat (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, although ref 9 template has gone weird, can you fix it♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a pipe, "|" between html, and title. My76Strat (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which I did correct. My76Strat (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The link for "Eduardo Rodriguez" needs further disambiguation. My76Strat (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also disambiguate the links for "Iman" and "The Package" (in the sub-section "Actor"). My76Strat (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In this sentence, "...is a Swedish actor,...", should not this be "...is a Swedish male actor,..."? The preceding is a rhetorical stab in jest; (my attempt at humor) I actually find the sentence fine in its current manifestation. My76Strat (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolph Lundgren not female? Really?. Not needed sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Within the references section, the date format should be consistent. Currently dates are shown as: 11 June 1989, and 2010-09-06. My76Strat (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed points 2, 3 and 4. Can you be more specific about point 5, can you identify the sentences for me which you believe have incorrect usage of the serial comma. I'm not sure what you mean about point 1. I tried to attribute a source to each fact. Please identify every fact/ref which you view as problematic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand comments under each specific bullet and you are welcome to indent a comment under each bullet as well. Thanks for giving attention to the suggestions above. My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this reference; unless there is more to see beyond the 100 or so words the link shows, It seems to lack verification for nearly every fact. I do not see any of the quotes for example. Am I missing something with this reference? My76Strat (talk)

• Comment. Hi My76Strat. There's a scroll bar just to the right of the text which allows users to advance downward to read the rest of it. It's easy to miss; I had to look twice before I found it. Majoreditor (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 17:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. It exactly explains the part I was missing. My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify exactly what you are talking about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the comment pertaining to this reference. It was an error on my part. My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like Dolph Lundgren a lot but I think someone should really condense his page.There's way too much information and a lot of it is unnecessary.

I get a headache from all the scrolling lol.

I totally agree with this. The article is full of unnecessary details in the early parts of the career section. Like the villa where he stayed during the filming of Red Scorpion. Also elements of his personal life are within that paragraph.Filmman3000 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dolph Lundgren is a good article because—

1. It is Well-written to wit:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

2. It is Verifiable with no original research. It has been reviewed, and found compliant to the following standards:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. The article is Broad in its coverage and has shown that:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. It is Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. The article is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute and it does:
^[4]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio, and the specific examples within the article have shown:
^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Well done! - My76Strat (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, I see you discovered the scroll bar on the biography! No wonder you were puzzled..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]