User:Vanguard826/Vote.org/Emmettaking Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Vanguard826


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Vanguard826/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Vote.org

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.)

The article you are adding to does not have a lot of information which gives you a lot of leeway into structuring. Right now you have five very nicely written paragraphs that all run together. I think you should break the down a little. You have a nice paragraph to replace the current work subtopic sentence. The other four can be split from before and after the termination of their former CEO. On a side note, it's interesting they terminated the CEO instead of her resigning. She was forced out. There might be more relevant context about the differences in opinion and the new direction they wanted to take. The context you give is already detailed and sufficient. I'm having trouble coming up with recommendations to this well rounded draft. Your sources are supportive and from relevant organizations like the NYT and Vox. All your links lead directly to them and you paraphrase in a way that avoids plagiarism but still makes the point you are aiming to take. Your lead is interesting and creative because it outlines an internal battle within the company. An image of the companies logo may be good to add. Your tone is very neutral and you bring new and up to date information to the current article. Overall, very nice job!