User:JESullivan99/Carole Wainaina/Alondrxxz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JESullivan99


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Carole Wainaina
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Carole Wainaina

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * This article focuses on a woman named Carole Wamuyu Wainaina. I believe that this article was well organized when it came down to the separate sections. It started off with a brief background of what she does, and then describes her biographical background and education. I believe that this clearly helps the reader understand the subjects we will encounter by reading the article. The time frame matches very well which is quite pleasing to the eye.
 * What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * I understand that some information is limited on certain people but I would like to see a bit more explanation of what exactly she is doing now. In the article, it tells the reader that she is currently working as the "Chief Operating Officer for Africa50 Infrastructure Fund," but it does not tell us how she got there. By leaving some of this information out, I can't help but question the process or trouble it took her to get to this point in her life. I think that the same concepts can be applied to the rest of the sections added. It mentions many jobs she was in but doesn't go into further detail. Again, I understand that there may be a lack of information in the articles, but if there is anything that pops up, try to include it.
 * What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * As I mentioned with the last question, adding more detail or description gives the reader a sense of who she really is. They are able to put themselves in that position and experience what it really felt like for Carole Wamuyu Wainaina.
 * Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
 * I do believe that adding the educational background of the person was a smart move because it allows the reader to engage and understand how and why the person is where they are now.
 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * I already mentioned how the sections were clear and nice to have but I do wonder if you will add more or leave it as is. Will there be more sections or will you just continue on with the descriptions in the same sections? I think that either can work if you plan out the chronological order in an accurate manner.

Overall, I do believe the article written is quite neutral. It does not state any forms of opinions. Instead, it only mentions Carole's history or background and where she went to achieve her current goals. I don't see any forms of biases, all I see are straight facts listed for the audience to reach out proper information. Is there a way you can add images to your article to make the reader aware of how this person looks like?