User talk:Doublea-ron/mana

This is a great start! Your article gives a clear progression over time and conveys that the organization is still around/evolving. I appreciate how you handled the details surrounding the name change, and made a topic that could be potentially confusing really informative.

I was curious what 'National limitations' referred to in this sentence: "The first few chapters, unable to thrive because of MANA's national limitations, did not succeed, but by 1979 local chapters were flourishing in New Mexico, Virginia, and California."

I think it's great that you list the MANA board of directors and local chapters, but are there any websites of either the people or local chapters you can hyperlink? Just in case someone reads the article, and wants to find more information about their local chapter.

Also, I think it was great how you named individuals that were honored in the Las Primeras sections, but are there any other notable people besides the board of directors that are members? If there are other politicians, activists, or celebrities involved in the organization that could be another thing that could draw people in even more.

I think the most important thing you could do is provide all of the hyperlinks/resources possible, because I feel this is definitely a topic people will want to find out more about. Aq0sw9de8fr7 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Review--Pearson
I am so excited for this to go live. It's a tremendous contribution to visibility for this organization and to representing a crucial part of recent women's history. You've done a nice job organizing the article into clear sections that take us through formation, early advocacy, name change, and into specific projects and then details about the membership and board. It's quite comprehensive. My main suggestion is to edit/proofread really carefully. Your writing is generally really good and clear, but some sentences are long and might be broken apart for easier reading on the wiki platform. Shoopee (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article feels really well put together! It is logical and well organized,and you did a wonderful job linking it to other pages. I was a little confused by the name change- Was it called "MANA" before the name change, and the change was what "MANA" was an abbreviation for? I think it would be clearer if you opened the history section with "MANA, originally the Mexican American Women's National Association" and were more careful about using the acronym MANA when the association wasn't called MANA. My other note is that you are (justifiably) critical of the Chicano and Feminist movements. If you take words like "blatantly" out of "blatantly excluded women of color" the article will have a more factual and less persuasive tone, and will still clearly express Latina exclusion from these other movements. Very nice work! Harborporpoise (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)