Talk:Brigitte Boisselier

Brigitte Boisselier has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion 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
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: New religious movements GA‑class

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group.

University of Houston (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject University of HoustonTemplate:WikiProject University of HoustonUniversity of Houston articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women scientists GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Solicitation of Brigitte Boisselier for dating/marriage

Put your text for the new page here.Hello Birgitte.My name is Sanne Modig,I`m from sweden.I have read the text about you on the `Swedich` tv-text on the mytelevision.I`m 27 years old,almost 28,in the 5`thift of feburary this year.I`m not so good too write in English,but I trye,I`m very intresste in your program,`baby`.................:)I think that very much people have whrite to you and they,want too be on your program.I`m a very sure aboute this.Please send me a messege.I wait for your mail.If you don`t see this soo seriuse,please mail me back so I dont site and wait for your mail,or your anserw.Please,I really want this,so please call me,on [number deleted for privacy reasons] or send me a mail on [e mail redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.150.161 (talk • contribs)

I am sure you can call Brigitte at her day job at Clonaid, loser. you need a net dating service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.104.158 (talk • contribs)

Nice. Being nasty isn't necessary. -- Zoe

Is it a joke??? --noaccount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.177.216 (talk • contribs)

I don't blame you, Sanne; she is kind of hot, but I don't think this is an appropriate use of the talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's at least 50 years old.Kmarinas86 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what has she done lately?

Has Boisselier disappeared from the public eye after her announcements a few years ago?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Dr"

We just use people's names in articles, see Albert Einstein for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits are excellent

We obviously have an expert writer fixing up the article on Brigitte Boisselier. In a mere span of days, this article has moved from a stub to what is clearly is a valid candidate for Good article status. Wonderful! (link to recent edits)siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'm glad to hear that you like it. It was a pleasure to research and write! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this looks like a very interesting article. I'd be happy to review it for you, Mark! If you have the time or inclination to return the favour, then I have a page awaiting GA review over at Madeline Montalban; no pressure to do so though! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review, I appreciate it. I have a couple reviews in process now, but your article does look pretty interesting, I'll keep that in mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction:

There is a picture of Boisselier, but this is not contained within an infobox. I personally think that these boxes add an aesthetic element to the page, but I'm not sure if there is a strict Wikipolicy insisting that you use one.
- No problem, I added one. Feel free to suggest different fields, that's all I could think of off the top of my head. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"scientist and religious leader" - I don't think any real scientist would refer to themselves purely as a “scientist”, they would use "neurobiologist", "experimental physicist" etc, and we should too. Similarly, it should be specified that she is a Raelist leader here; after all, we would not open the article on Pope Benedict by stating that he is a “religious leader”, we would expressly refer to him as a "Roman Catholic leader".
- Ahh, good point, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a secret lab" - I'd recommend using "laboratory" here, over “lab”. Furthermore, where was this lab; from the preceding sentences, I was under the impression that it was in France, not the U,S,
- Good points, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the effort received" - how about “project received” ?
- Sounds good, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Will get to the next two points later. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Ok, I've added archive urls to the links and added in a couple pictures. Unfortunately, I don't believe that there are any free images of Rael accessible. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Mark, I think that this easily passes GA review; glad to have been of service! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few alterations to improve the prose in the introduction are required.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I'd have to recommend that the editor responsible for this page uses webcitation (as at Islam: The Untold Story) in order to preserve the sources; otherwise they might end up as dead links, and then the GA status of this page might get revoked.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Currently, we have only one image; could we maybe introduce some more, just to add to the pages' aesthetic value. Perhaps one of Rael himself ?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Dead reference links

Despite previous adulation for the professionalism of the page, it remains bizarre that this person warrants more than a stub. References are difficult to verify (and generally won't be verified by casual users, which is a significant problem), there are patches of subtle editorializing within the article, and ultimately it seems that the only reason that this woman has garnered her own page is that she made several fantastic, unverifiable claims. Clearly not a priority, but take this article with a wheelbarrow of salt.--Concerned Editor 01:19 7 October 2014 (UTC)