the Wikipedia policy says

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.

1 The language in the article clearly is judgemental and disparages the subject and sympathize with feminists that it is a myth that some feminists can be misandrists by using words like "false", "myth", "criticize" "claiming" immediately after 2 paragraphs in the opening of the article while at the same time presenting the opinions of unnamed authors as facts.

2 - instead of referring to the opinions of the authors in another section, their opinions are referred to immediately in the article opening after 2 paragraphs, there were 3 paragraphs critical of the term misandry compared to 2 paragraphs explaining what is misandry, clearly the article is biased that is why it criticize the term misandry more than explaining it and it denied that some feminists can be misandrsists, it like saying it is a myth that some Asian people can be racist, the term misandary has nothing to with feminism yet the article defends feminists in the opening article.

3 - Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.

The opening of article rather than talking only about misandry it defends feminists from misandry and mentions the opinions of the authors as facts that all people who disagrees with these facts are promoting myths instead of mentioning their opinions in neutral way not as facts that everyone should take it all as gospel.