Jump to content

Talk:Rachel McAdams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GuzzyG (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 21 May 2018 (adding VA template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleRachel McAdams has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 22, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

First remarks

Does she has an oficial web page?

MTV movie awards does not mean critical acclaim you idiots!!!!--24.34.52.5 03:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the IMDB facts are a bit incorrect. Her age is 25. 1978 or 79. This is from a personal aquaintance. I can add the info for pre-highschool as well if anyone cares. --Darkfred 15:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current picture

The current picture is awful. You can barely see her face, and it is not really representative of her. I will look for a suitable replacement. -- 68.160.19.103 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its insane thats its there.. someone needs to find a replacement Kotare 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current profile picture is very bad. It needs to be changed ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.16.90 (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years her junior....

how can she be ten years Lindsey Lohan's junior if Lindsey was born in 1986 and Rachel McAdams in 1978?

It's the other way around - Lohan is 10 years younger, as the article says. Well, depending on whether or not Adams was born in 76 or 78, we can't seem to decide... Adam Bishop 08:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources say 1976... Sasquatcht|c 19:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article meant maturity-wise. --Coryma 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in 1978 --- she graduated with me in 1997 from CECI... 70.68.133.26 08:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)HUDSON[reply]

Scottish-Americans?

Someone added her to "Scottish-Americans" and "Irish-Canadians". The only source for her background is the IMDB, which says she's Irish, but I think they are, as usual, wrong. Does anyone have a good source? 24.141.147.6 06:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is McAdams. I wouldn't doubt that she was of Irish ancestry. "Scottish-Americans" can go because she isn't American. Mike H. That's hot 09:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hardly think we should list people in categories based on last name. What if just her great-great-great-grandfather was Irish or Scottish, and everyone else in her family is British, or French, or Greek, etc. etc. We could reasonably start listing every person on Wikipedia in a category based on their last name alone, and without a good source. In fact, I'm sure that's what whoever submitted that errenous and misleading trivita note to the IMDB did. If you were famous, I could assume your last name, "Halterman", is German, and least you under German-Americans(?). We need a verifiable source, not just a last name, something like her saying "I'm of Irish-Scottish, etc. descent" in an interview. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. 24.141.147.6 19:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pics

i suggest that we cut down the pics. there are too many pics, it just distracting the article. i think it needs only one/two nice pic of her.HoneyBee 11:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the lead one isn't that free to use in Wikipedia anyway, so it should be the one to go, and the Allure cover should go back to its old position at the top of the article. Mike H. That's hot 13:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that even really her on the cover? It looks...very unlike her I guess. Adam Bishop 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to put the Red Eye pic? Because we already have two in the movie red-eye section. Kinda too many. Maybe we should put one great pic of her, instead putting so many. Just a suggestion. HoneyBee 04:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel deserves "Front Page" article coverage not "KaDee"

Anyone else agree?

--Bourbon King 18:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No? Because this article isn't anywhere near featured status? Mike H. That's hot 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't bad. Maybe it needs a few details added here and there and it needs the Trivia section removed and added into the article itself. Otherwise, it is a good article and isn't filled with pointless extraneous info like the Strickland one. Vulturell 21:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel McAdams - Born November 17, 1978

Rachel McAdams was born on November 17, 1978, according to THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. Ava M

Link please? But I would agree with you that the AP is obviously more reliable than the IMDB, which has fumbled dates and other info many times over. Vulturell 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a personal source for this since my wife was friends with her in school. But I don't have anything i feel like posting in public. She was born in 1978 though, just look at the graduation dates. 1976 is literally impossible. --Darkfred Talk to me 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to school with Rachel from grade 9 to OAC --- she's a year older than me, which puts her born in 1978. Can't remember her actual birthday, but November does ring a bell... 70.68.133.26 08:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)HUDSON.[reply]

According to Astrotherme, at this link [1], she was indeed born November 17, 1978. Hotwine8 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable link, but good effort, Hotwine8. To confirm her birthdate, we need an AP link.--Sli723 07:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My wife went to school with her, and she thinks..." is not a verifiable, it's gossip! Don't waste our time with nonsense like that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"1976 is literally impossible" HUH???!!!!! 'literally' impossible??? Again, we are in the realm of zero sense and utter idiocy! No one has ever graduated high school at 19 then! It's literally impossible! OK! The level of stupidity here is startling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, why are we not changing her birthdate back to 1976? If the press got her age wrong and she was actually younger don't you think her PR people would have corrected this? Common sense people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.171.22 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across a scan of a microfilm that someone put up that displays the "Birth and Death Notices" in The London Free Press in December of 1978. It states that Rachel McAdams was born on November 17, 1978. Though I don't know how to go about posting this picture up on here without violating some type of copyright. Miss Sara G 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is a scan of her birth announcement published in The London Free Press, Thursday, December 7, 1978, C8. I can not imagine any more reliable a source than that. Unfortunately, this source is not available in online format and can only be confirmed by going to a library and looking up the microfilm. Nevertheless, it is there for anyone willing to take the time to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.87.182 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a scan of the microfilm on my computer. But my question is whether or not I can post it without violating any type of copyright and how I should go about doing it. Miss Sara G (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Her year of birth is definitely 1978. In the March 30, 2009 issue of Stars magazine on page 15 it states that she is 30. Thus making her year of Birth 1978.

Liquidous Snake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Trivia section

I'm not even sure this information belongs here (a lot of it sounds like stuff somebody read in a celeb magazine), but if it's here, it has to at least be cited. We have no reason to believe the majority of these "facts" are true. For example, "She likes maple syrup so much she even drinks it." -- nearly a direct quote from Wedding Crashers. Did she say this? Where and when? No idea based on the current page. Let's do better. --SuperNova |T|C| 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is true, it's pretty stupid, so we're better off without it entirely. I've removed it. Adam Bishop 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She appared in A Head & Sholders ad, She is the first girl in the ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.59.172 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia, etc.

I removed this because I personally don't believe in these "FACT" tags that no one ever cites: "Rachel McAdams was born as Rachel MacAdams, but changed it to McAdams when she began acting.". Inserted trivia into the article - removed some because it was, well, trivial. Also removed the stuff about her being of Irish descent, until someone cites that with some kind of good source (that's right, I don't mean the IMDB) Mad Jack 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Is this editor saying that we can't include any non-free picture in the header? The text in the article has about one sentence on "Red Eye", so that picture belongs down there about as much as it does in the header. I tire of picture beaurocracies Mad Jack 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mad Jack. If you disagree with Wikipedias image policies, please, be bold and suggest a change. We're interested in hearing your input. How would you chage the text on {{Movie-screenshot}} to allow for such image uses? Regards, --Abu Badali 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McAdams with a capital A

I'm new here so pardon the newbie type question...how do you change the misspelling of Mcadams over her photo? I wasn't able to do it in editing her bio info. --The Rude Bud 05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Adam Bishop 06:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something...

When Rachel McAdams turned 17, Namco created the arcade game Ridge Racer in 1993. You can check in Test Mode under A.D.S. and the screen will say that the machine was created on 10-7-1993.

--D.F. Williams 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

...so? Adam Bishop 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I played this in MAME, I just thought it was interesting to share, that's all. --D.F. Williams 04:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use and Life Magazine Cover

Inclusion of this picture is clearly a fair use under copyright law. Under federal law any published image may be reproduced on a public webpage provided that the reproduction is smaller and of inferior quality to the original. Images of the kind used on Wikipedia are a clear example of this type of fair use. See Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003). Redkern 17:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking WP:FU, I agree that this cover is unnecessary and should be removed under current Wiki policy. That does not change my views as to the legality of the fair use, but I do recognize that Wikipedia can limit its own interpretation of fair use. I think Wikipedia should expand its fair use policy, but I'm willing to accept the current policy. Redkern 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Birthplace

The text says

McAdams was born in London, Ontario, and grew up in nearby St. Thomas.

but the summary box says she was born in St. Thomas. Minor detail but still, which is it? --Mcorazao 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in London. Fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "My Name is Tanino" under her career?

I find it strange you guys are missing discussing this movie in detail where she had quiet a lot of topless scenes! It should be noted in the article as the part about Vanity Fair shooting and her opting out cause of nudity gives the impression that she's really concerned about nude scenes which is quiet not so true as seen in My Name is Tanino. Here is the link to her nude/topless scenes: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Payam81 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nationality

Per WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph #3 a biography should give Nationality. Removing this should be considered vandalism and users should be warned accordingly. --After Midnight 0001 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

current picture

haha. i saw the picture of her and her breasts i was like "how can they do this"? well yea if she were to see this she probably would be mad. well a picture of her smiling (with clothes) is good.

Birthdate

Can anyone provide a source for the birthdate? I don't see anything definitive on the existing links. --After Midnight 0001 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows results for both 1976 and 1978, so I'm not sure. --JYi 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Elle magazine of April 2007, it says she is 28 (they asked Rachel's mother). That's a pretty good source, if you ask me. Aloha princess 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Radar magazine is given as the source of the 1978 birthdate, but if you read the article it suggests that while it is unknown, 1976 is the more likely year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.139.140 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The article simply reports the conflicting stories. To read more into it is POV. Ward3001 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC posted her birthday here.--Sli723 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ward3001 - you are changing this page without proof of age in actual article. See Ref. 1 on the main page and also external link to IMDB. Do not post information that is not akin to what is already posted. comment added by Underaround

The "proof" is that there are conflicting reports from different sources. Look immediately above. Even the source that you point out (Ref. 1) acknowledges that only "some" sources report her year of birth as 1976. So I'm not posting something contrary to sources. There is no consensus to change the date to 1976. And you're the one who is edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus you have no right to change it to 1978. You post 1978 as the birth year yet you leave information that is to the contrary therefore leaving her page with contradictory reports. Please do not threaten me on my talk page (which is against Wikipedia policy and that of remedying conflicts) or I will have to report you to higher sources - that is if I actually cared. Oh, and, Pot meet the edit war Kettle. You're more than welcome to change is to "c.1977" if that makes your authoritarian self feel better. User: Underaround
"remedying conflicts": I see. Your solution to "remedying conflicts" is to edit war and now make personal attacks. Watch out for those "higher sources" whose name you like to invoke when making threats; they might see a few things about your editing practices. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed date of birth until someone can provide a definitive source that resolves the conflicting sources, or a clear consensus emerges here. It should not be "c. 1976" or "c. 1978" because that only continues the conflict. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her Birthdate is definately 17th NOVEMBER 1978: here is her birth announcement in her local newspaper (7 Dec 1978)- http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8425/thelondonfreepressut4.png - left hand column explicitly states that 'Rachel Anne was born 17th November 1978' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.239.84 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Her year of birth is definitely 1978. In the March 30, 2009 issue of Stars magazine on page 15 it states that she is 30. Thus making her year of Birth 1978.

Liquidous Snake (talk)

Birthday - poll

There is now an AP source which gives her birthday as November 17, thus adding the weight of a valid citation to the comments of people who knew her and to the lady who has seen a contemporary newspaper announcing her birth on that day. I propose that her birthdate on the article be amended to November 17. Please vote below - many thanks. Jess Cully (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some points of clarification:
  • The AP link noted above is here, which states November 17.
  • radaronline.com states it as October 7.
  • IMDb states it as October 7.
  • The "comments of people who knew her and ... the lady who has seen a contemporary newspaper announcing her birth on that day" are not cited with reliabale sources.
Ward3001 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, her birthday is November 17. Here is the proof.--Sli723 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Her year of birth is definitely 1978. In the March 30, 2009 issue of Stars magazine on page 15 it states that she is 30. Thus making her year of Birth 1978.

Liquidous Snake (talk)

BIRTHDAY

Hi, well I´ve checked many sources finding out that Rachel McAdams was born in Canada on October 7th, 1976. So she is 31 years old. I remembered that once you have that date on the article but now it has been changed to November 17, 1978. Please checked that because the biography is an important section in any artist´s life. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.183.99 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your sources. Ward3001 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Her year of birth is definitely 1978. In the March 30, 2009 issue of Stars magazine on page 15 it states that she is 30. Thus making her year of Birth 1978.

Liquidous Snake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Old news LS. Read all of the talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General

done

WP:LEAD
  • "had her eyes set", "on the Hollywood radar" sound unencyclopedic and colloquial

re-worded the latter. However, I could not find the "had her eyes set" in the earlier part on the article. Could you point out what section it is in?

    • It was in the 2nd sentence of this version. It has been corrected.
  • Link York U here not later in the text.

done

clarified

Early life

done

fixed Crystal Clear x3 06:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2000s
  • scoring is an unencyclopedic verb choice in this use. Same with "take down"

fixed

  • Mention what country and network Slings and Arrows is for since we just talked about her transitioning to her first US film

done

done

  • Almost no facts require more than three sources for verification ([20][21][22][23]). Either work in more detail from the sources to make their relevance clear or trim this down.

fixed

  • In paragraph 2, you start talking about The Notebook without naming it. It may even deserve its own paragraph, but I can't tell when you stop talking about Mean Girls.

fixed

  • viewer-voted sounds wrong. People's choice probably sounds better.

done

  • "remaining her top domestic grossing film at over $209.5 million" needs to be rephrased. It sounds like it was her top hit before she was in it and remained so afterwards.

clarified

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Done
2006–present
  • 287,000 needs units.

done

  • link New York Post

done

  • Elaborate on clash

done

  • Ungrammatical: McAdams found this role to be a departure from previous parts[50] enjoyed doing her own stunts as it is the closest thing she has to playing sports.

fixed --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the media
  • link Entertainment Weekly

done

done

      • Did I miss this?
Personal life
  • Do we know what type of Green Card she has?

clarified

  • The phrase "cable connection" sounds foreign to me.

fixed

  • I'd consider linking environmental awareness, vegetarian and Kensington Market (if it has one).

done

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Probably a GA already. I just need to make a final runthrough and check the images

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    By being so early in her career, this article seems less broad than GAs of other actress, but I think it is fairly complete.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I have to do an image review
    All images need {{Personality rights}} tags.
    The first two WP:CAPTIONs need to be adjusted. If they are not complete sentences, they should not end in a period.
Done
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Good job. I am pleased to pass this now.

Quotes and other trimming

I have trimmed the excessive quotes and other material in the article. Other editor objects, but some support. --BweeB (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your decision for now although it is a contradiction of what was recommended in the article's peer review. Hopefully, you won't object to me slowly reintroducing the quotes as the article expands in other areas. I really don't think two critical opinions, for example, of her role in Sherlock Holmes was excessive. And I can't say I think the article looks any better now - lots of one and two-line paragraphs. Also, lots of "other material" was deleted for unexplained reasons without clear policy justifications. I think smaller edits with explanations would have been more helpful for regular editors of the article.Popeye191 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that at peer review it was recommended that more critical reaction be added in some areas, for example, to the Mean Girls section.Popeye191 (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's settle the birth date issue

Until the date of birth issue is resolved, I have removed all unsourced dates, including the category. We either document the conflict among RS, or we don't include anything not sourced to a RS, and no mention in the infobox. (We have a similar situation on the Jessica Chastain article, and that's our temporary solution. It's the only way to abide by policy.)

I have no particular interest in any particular date, and anyone who can provide a date from a RS is welcome to include it in the article, but until we have absolute certainty for which date is correct, the infobox should not contain any date at all. It's okay to include conflicting dates in the article, as long as we use very neutral wording. Wikipedia is NOT stating that those are her actual dates of birth, only that RS have stated so. Obviously they can't all be true, and when we have certainty for the right date, the wrong ones will either be removed, or included as examples of RS reporting the wrong date.

I notice that IMDB has been mentioned above, but policy states that it is not a RS for such purposes. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an issue anymore; her real birth date is very well established. However, it's true that the sources should be more reliable . I have added a direct quote from Rachel about being born in London, Ontario. I fixed the dead link to a scan of her birth announcement in The London Free Press. I also added a link to People Magazine. Let me know if you still have concerns.Popeye191 (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as RS are conflicting, there is an issue. Until it's resolved, we document ALL of the dates which RS mention. The sources you just added or fixed mention the Nov. 17 date. You're welcome to add those mentions, and to make sense of it all, add that sources are conflicting. Because adding incorrect information in the infobox is a BLP violation, we need to keep it free of ANY dates until we are 100% certain. Please remove that info and the category. We can only do that when we have ONLY one date for certain. We don't yet.
Take a look at the Jessica Chastain article. After much discussion from admins and very experienced editors at RS/N and other places, that seems to be the best we can do for now. We need to do the same here. They even said that when we have certainty, we should still only mention the year, and nothing more about dates, in the infobox. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much of a comparison to be made. Unlike Jessica Chastain, Rachel has never been secretive about her age. When she first became famous, IMBD got her age wrong, which is what caused the confusion a few years ago. Her publicist corrected this error. Do you have recent reliable sources which state she is a different age? What source could be more reliable than her birth announcement?!
However, I have now also added a ref for Elle Magazine from the era of this debate, in which the journalist discussed the issue. And please see the NYTimes article which identifies her as 31 in October 2010.Popeye191 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the earliest articles about her, here, from a Canadian newspaper syndicate, which interviewed her high-school guidance counselor, her hometown drama teacher and others, and names the specific hospital where she was born says Oct. 17, 1978. While I would prefer to go with that, other RS cites give Nov. 17, so as with Mariah Carey, Lil' Kim and others, it would be POV to choose one over the other. As a previous editor said, "document all the dates." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images of others

Considering how strict Wikipedia has become with regards to image use, is it appropriate for this article to include standalone images of Tina Fey and Owen Wilson et al? Having their images doesn't seem to add anything to the article and would seem to violate one of the image use rules about using images just to show what a person looks like, as well as overuse of images (there are more images of other people than there are of the subjectof this article. One would think an image of McAdams in character from a production or at the very least an additional Commons image of her would be more appropriate. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 image

Hi Oz Steps, I really appreciate your keeping the image on the article, despite its initial flaws. I have uploaded a better version of the image. Feel free to look at it and give me your opinion on this newer version. It may not be infobox worthy, but at least is it better? Thanks so much. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the 2012 photo should be used in the infobox.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Keraunoscopia, The current picture in the infobox is more up close and its color is better. But the picture in 2012, Sorry for this, also the Colors are not real. This is a good article, and the picture in the infobox should be a better than that. Please do not change the image, but when we see the opinion of other users. Thanks so much. --Oz Steps (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I wasn't going to move it back to the infobox, and I'm aware the article is GA. As for the colors, they are not any less real than most photographs. The original was extremely underexposed, and I have no comparison as to what tone her skin was in that room at that moment. But thanks for answering my question. I'm not here to argue, just to open a discussion, but I will disagree with your argument that the infobox image should be "more up close". – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents - I know the current infobox image was cropped/edited/improved, but IMHO it's not as flattering as the other two images in the article. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rachel McAdams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel McAdams. 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:

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) 17:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rachel McAdams. 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:

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) 08:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rachel McAdams. 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:

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) 13:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_McAdams&oldid=842322937"