# Talk:Brigitte Boisselier

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

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)

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

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 Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
"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)
"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)
"the effort received" - how about “project received” ?
Sounds good, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Will get to the next two points later. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Thanks Mark, I think that this easily passes GA review; glad to have been of service! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.108.183 (talk)  

Photo provided here doesn't look at all like the photos on Google Images, incl. screenshots from C-SPAN. What gives? Time to find a new image? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)