Talk:Brenda Sexton

Comment
Right now this article reads more like a newspaper PR bio than an encyclopedia article. I would recommend that the text be gone through and think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it. The 'Early life' section seems unencyclopedic and I earlier removed a statement about how much she earned per year. The parts on her role on the film board are good. I am not sure all of the places she worked in realty is encyclopedic either. Jbh (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed a bunch of places she worked in real estate. Personally I think the whole section should go because this history has nothing to do with her notability. Jbh (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits. For what remains in the 'real estate' section now, I believe that it should stay. It lists her noteworthy achievements in that particular field, and how Sexton has been able to succeed in her career. I can see how the earlier text was less "encyclopedia", but I don't think it is necessary to get rid of the section entirely. Mchuedem (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed a bit of 'puffery' "one of the top..". It is non-quantifiable, ie no award, what does "one of the top..." mean - top 10, top 100 etc. The rest seems OK to fill in what she was doing during that time in her life. Jbh (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added to the lead to indicate why she is considered notable; I agree that the text has been improved. If talk is comfortable with it now, perhaps the banner tag can be removed? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not object if others wish to remove the tag. I still think the bio reads more like a book-cover bio but I guess that is more my idea of what "should" be rather than what is OK. Jbh (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also do not object.Mchuedem (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)