User:Editor200005/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amelia_Bloomer&oldid=1165824107&action=edit

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

My preliminary impression of this article was that at a glance it looked filled with information. I chose this article to evaluate because the article is filled with information about Amelia Bloomer's life but it is still considered a C-class article. I liked that the article is giving me just enough information to go off of but it still has editing to do. This article matters because Amelia Bloomer was a temperance advocate which I believe women or people in general who were temperance advocate are not really talk about. I only say this because this is my first time reading about a temperance advocate.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Starting off in the article it does a good job at stating the type of person Amelia Bloomer was and what she stood for. It does not go into very much detail about the sections that will be touched upon later on in the article so overall the lead section is not very strong. Although this article is short it is up to date with the last revision being in April of 2023. Each section of the article is relatively short so I believe there is some information missing but even so each section is filled with semi relevant information, there are times where they add unnecessary sentences. To give the reader a clearer image on what they are reading the article includes a few pictures that gives a well caption on the things that are mentioned. Not once did I feel like I was being persuaded to one side of the story. Overall, I think the editors of this article did a good job at keeping the tone neutral and informative. With many information being said the editors also did a good job at using a various of references throughout the article and making sure they all came from different point of views, websites, etc. As I read through the article it was clear as to what the editors were talking about plus it was easy to follow because there are sections to the article. In the Talk page the article is rated as a C-class article for each of its categories. There are also a few of conversations on the Talk page and they all seem like they are just trying to get help from each other by asking questions. The article overall is under developed there are still a lot of information that can be discovered and inputted. A strength it contains is the separation of each sections in the article.