Talk:Rachel Bradley

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rachel Bradley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Don't put quote marks around blockquotes per MOS:QUOTE
• Put punctuation after the closing quote mark (not before)
• I think you can get away with a low-resolution screenshot under fair use for the infobox

That's all, so I'm happy to pass this. An excellent article and I hope you'll consider taking it to FAC, possibly via PR. congratulations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for your review. Re the infobox, I don't think a non-free image would pass the NFCC; there's nothing special about how the character looks, no special makeup, and no special costuming. Alas. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

When the series ended, there was a 20% increase in the number of people taking out life insurance policies with one provider, which was attributed to Rachel's premature death.

fact tag This is stated in the opening text yet isn't cited. Further down a similar sentence is in place which is cited. This sentence is less vague and states that it was Tesco Insurance which states this. That isn't an impartial source and the statement isn't the same as the opening statement, hence as the claim in initially stated isn't adequately sourced.

dubious This claim is highly unlikely for three reasons: 1. Given the audience figures, how many people already had life insurance and how many disinterested customers there were, 20% seems improbable. 2. Any increase isn't necessarily attributable to the characters death. How many other news and cultural influences may there have been at this time? 3. It is really quite an extraordinary claim. I would want more evidence than simply the data from one insurance provider about their own sales before I would readily accept this claim.

other Did Tesco heavily advertise during this episode? If so, how much of the sales increase is attributable to the story line and how much to advertising? Unless it can be linked squarely to the storyline it is a little irrelevant. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The citation does not need to be repeated in the lead, but for clarification I have specified that the company was Tesco. Regarding your other concerns, I'm not sure what to make of them; Western Mail & Echo Ltd is a separate entity to Tesco plc and is no less an impartial source than, say, the same source reporting on an increase in wedding packs being sent out to prospective couples who wanted to marry in the village (source 48). While I'm not dismissing any of the points you've raised, at what point do Wikipedia users decide something is bullshit? OK, it probably is just a bit of cheap advertising but what is the threshold for inclusion in this situation? Do you think it would be better to signpost it more strongly in the article ("The Western Mail reported Tesco Personal Finance had a 20% increase...")? Otherwise I think this is something that might have an impact on other articles and ought to have wider discussion in the community. For reference, the dubious tag was dated March 2012; I have changed it to March 2013. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rachel Bradley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809211207/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200303/ai_n9232498/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200303/ai_n9232498/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vjnuueYx?url=http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/A27484617 to http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/A27484617
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/5vjnuueYx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply