User:Elissamoody/sandbox

Article Draft
Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era is a sociological critique of the angry white male phenomenon in America by Michael Kimmel, first published in 2013. The book was re-published in April of 2017 with a new preface by Kimmel that directly discusses President Donald Trump.

Overview
Kimmel examines what he describes as the aggrieved entitlement of white men in early 21st-century American society. According to Kimmel, many white men, as members of a historically dominant group in America, have reacted to increases in social equality and the loss of economic advantage with overt anger and rage. Written from a liberal perspective, the book describes various manifestations of this anger, including domestic violence, shootings, involvement in white supremacist groups, and the men's rights and fathers' rights movements. Each chapter of the book discusses a different topic and population of men, including young men and violence, mens rights groups, mens violence toward women, the white working class, and white supremacist groups such as Neo-Nazis.

Reception
Angry White Men has faced mixed reviews from the public. Sarah Sobieraj from Tufts University summed up that the book will "inspire robust debate in many undergraduate classrooms" but that it "will not, however, be popular with angry white men," noting that it is a "shame" that the men who are represented within the book are likely the men that will not want to read it.

Gary Silverman from the Financial Times writes, "the angrier the white man, the more fascinated Kimmel tends to be," and calls the book a "missed opportunity." In contrast, Zak Foste from Ohio State University "honors" Kimmel for his work interviewing so many men with whom he disagreed with on a fundamental level in order to write this book.

My Article!
I assigned myself the article "Angry White Men," which is a page about a book by that name. There was very little information on the page about the content of the book or the reception of it, so I think that there is a good amount of information I will be able to add.

Evaluating Articles and Sources

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything seemed relevant and nothing was distracting.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Much of the article came from a government/legal stance which helped it to remain mostly neutral. There was a large section about the changes under Obama, and only a small section highlighting the changes now under the Trump administration, which could show some bias. One thing that helps neutralize the article is that there is a section covering the "Dear Colleague" letter as well as a section covering the controversy surrounding it.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Every link that I clicked worked. When I looked at the talk section, I saw that several had been recently updated to have working links.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Almost all sources seemed to be reliable and neutral. There were 81 total sources.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * More information about the changes under the Trump administration could be added.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * I mentioned this earlier, but the only thing discussed in the talk section were external links that had been modified.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia does not go in depth into the effect of Title IX ob sexual assault.