Talk:Brigitte Boisselier/GA1

GA Review

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

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.