User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn/DerekE9831 Peer Review

General info
Aliciab5334, Eric godbout24, Hailey720
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead
There's a lot of good information here, but I think it's a bit too much for a lead section. A lot of the information in here would be better suited to a different section, maybe one about "early life," "education," or "career." This section would be better-suited with just a few sentences that briefly describe who Regina Gwynn is and what she does and has accomplished, without going into any of that in great detail. That can be accomplished in later sections that naturally flow from what is mentioned in the lead.

I noticed that the first citation isn't until about halfway through the lead section. The more citations throughout your article, the better. I'm sure that the information you provided up to that point came from one or several of your sources so it'd be good to see those citations at the end of the sentences so the reader can track where that information came from.

Article Body
I think readability could be improved a bit by breaking the paragraphs down. Right now this is all one big paragraph that transitions from idea to idea. Although they may all be related, I think if it's broken down topic-by-topic in separate paragraphs, it'd be easier to read. Also, some of the information may be better suited for other sections entirely. Of course, it looks like you haven't really implemented sections yet, which could be another improvement you could make to your draft.

Also in this section, the article starts to drift away from the focus. Towards the end, with the sentence beginning "As 2018 progressed," the article begins discussed BWTT exclusively. Although Regina Gwynn may be associated with the group, unless she specifically had something to do with what's mentioned in the last couple of sentences, it's probably best to do away with them so the article's purpose and focus remains clear.

Overall Impression
I think you guys have a good draft here and clearly understand the information you've found for Regina in your references. Other than more citations needed throughout the article, I think the biggest issue may be with how it's written. Don't get me wrong, the writing is very good and easy to read. But the problem with it, in my opinion, is that it comes across as a narrative. Rather than simply being told the information, it's written a bit like a story. I may be in the wrong here, but from my experience, a Wikipedia biography should be a bit more "boring." What I mean by that is, in the lead section, you mentioned that Regina's father and grandfather were both business owners, therefore she "knew" she wanted to run a business. This kind of assumes knowing what her thought process was, which might be a perfectly valid statement if the sentence was supported by a citation.

Ultimately, I think your group has a lot of good information in your article, it just needs a bit of organization into clear sections and sub-sections, and just re-wording of some sentences so that they come across as more informational and neutral.