Talk:Maria Hinojosa

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Hinojosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911234115/http://www.futuromediagroup.org/lusa/ to http://www.futuromediagroup.org/lusa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111223234555/http://www.shemadeit.org/meet/summary.aspx?m=175 to http://www.shemadeit.org/meet/summary.aspx?m=175
 * Added tag to http://www.powerfullatinas.com/maria-hinojosa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Rdrs from Yank misspellings
I’m one of the average arrogant Yanquis: I thot I wa clever to start with “inojosa” and only then resorted to El Norte-esque guesses like “ inohosa”. Well, it’s clear 2 redirects are called for, and likely more, for other needed or worthwhile ones. --JerzyA (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Chaotic - needs chronological order
This article is chaotic, jumping around chronologically, and needs reorganization. Normal Wikipedia biographical articles are written in chronological order.

They summarize the key significance and/or achievements of the individual in the lede -- in one to three paragraphs. See: MOS:LEADBIO

But -- after that short summary -- per MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL, the main body of the article should start with early life / education / career, in the titled sections, before progressing, chronologically, into their current life, roles and activity. This is important because "past is prologue" and gives clarifying context to subsequent developments in the life and career of the individual.

Personal life may be left to the end of the article, in a separate "Personal life" section -- to the extent that their personal life is not identified with the reasons for the individual's notoriety. (For instance, if their family and personal friends are not prominent figures in their own right, nor significantly involved with the article-subject's career and notoriety, then it is OK to save them as an afterthought. Otherwise, their involvement should be more appropriately included in the main chronological body of the article).
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)