User:Willisa2/sandbox

White Feminism
The first sentence of the article is pretty biased. It uses the word "supposedly" when describing that white feminism ignores that POC's experience with sexism is often different than white peoples, and often gets ignored. The article in general reads more like a very short history of the feminist movement more than an explanation of what white feminism is. If I had not know what white feminism was prior to reading this article I don't think it would have helped in much with my understanding. A number of the sources in the reflist are also from biased news sources and opinion articles on websites. There was a number of edits made to the article, some of them are vaild for the purpose of the article or to make it comply to wikipedia quality, and some are made by people clearly annoyed with the topic of the article so they made changes. There isn't much on the talk page but source suggestions and a peer review. The banner at the top of the page asserts that it may need to be rewritten. It also isn't elaborate enough to be relevant to anything we talked about in class.

Black Feminism
This article is worlds better than the one on white feminism. Everything in the article is 100% relevant to the topic of black feminism. Every claim that is made is referenced and the source included. I think when talking about a social moment it can be easy to present biases or opinion but this article reads free of bias and as an history and definition of what black feminism is. Also when things are stated like, "Proponents of black feminism argue that black women are positioned within structures of power in fundamentally different ways from white women", it also provides opposing opinions, "Critics of black feminism argue that racial divisions weaken the strength of the overall feminist movement." There wasn't much going on in the talk tab but all if it was relevant to the topic, and according to the history tab provided relevant changes to the document. The references list is also long and relevant to the topic, there is also a further readings section. It is relevant to topics covered in class and would fit with things nicely, like the section on institutions or intersectionality.

Masculinity
This page is also elaborate and would fit into the definition of a good article by wikipedia's standards. It is free of bias, as a strong reflist with working links to reputable sources. One thing I would remove is the section of effeminacy, it is something that can be discussed when talking about the concept of masculinity but I don't think it belongs on the masculinity page. It should be included in a see also section. I would also remove the section on alcohol consumption, I understand why it was included but it was sort of distracting. According to the talk pages, someone else also found it irrelevant. Someone also proposed a relevant sub topic for the page relating to masculinity in women that was talked about some with other users though it hasn't seemed to be added to anything. The edit history of the page also showed some good revisions with a few that were just opinion related. This article directly relates to things we talked about in class with our readings about gender performance and provides a more extensive view on masculinity.