This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hey all—I know at least one of y'all are working on this page for an assignment. I just wanted to offer my assistance if you have any questions about Wikipedia or structuring your future edits to mesh with the rest of the encyclopedia. (E.g., I'd be happy to take a look at an outline for where you want to go with the article.) Take care czar ♔ 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I am working on this page for an assignment in a Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course at Rice University. I'll be adding more to the article over the next week, and I would greatly appreciate any feedback you have to give. Specifically, I will be adding an "Effects" section to the article, with subtopics in "Educational outcomes" and "social wellbeing." I will also add a "Policy proposals and controversies" section. I'm eventually going to flesh out the history section a little more, too, but for the moment my main focus is on issues of contemporary segregation. Thanks! Sallyhc42 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Sallyhc42: I'd consider how you want to handle history of the discourse versus history of the phenomenon, for the present info. I'm not sure "Effects" would be the most encyclopedic term, but we can address that later (maybe something like "findings" unless causality is established). I wouldn't worry about subtopics until the section gets long enough where it needs to be split. For your recent edits, be sure to mark any content edits as non-minor edit and I thought the dates of the studies (recently removed) helped put the findings in perspective. Let me know if I can help with anything czar ♔ 20:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that in parts of Texas, schools were segregated three ways: 'white', 'colored' (African-American), and 'Mexican' (Mexican-American). This 'three-way segregation' may have existed in other southwestern US states, as well. De facto school segregation in some places in Texas lasted well past Brown vs. Board of Education, into even the 1970s... A 'fourth dimension' of school segregation in the US involved the separate and forced education of Native American children in 'Indian schools'. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas usually are referred to as part of the US southwest. Missouri, as part of the midwest. Right? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is in very good shape right now. The sourcing, formatting, and readability is all almost perfect, so the focus at this point should be on adding more content. Adding specific causal theories to the Sources of contemporary segregation section would balance the studies that you already have in a more theoretical way, which is what this article needs at the moment. The other major area that could use expanding is the Implications of segregation section, which is currently limited to just education and social well being. Many more topic areas (economic, health, employment, etc.) could be explored here, and it would add greatly to the quality of the article. While further work could be done with adding images and footnotes, the article is looking good enough to where the main edits should simply be adding more content. DerekHolliday (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This article has a very well organized structure and each paragraph has a clear leading sentence. The content is well written and easy to follow. The statistics are the latest and reliable references are used. Expansion of some subtopics might be helpful to further address this topic (the examples noted by Derek can be considered). More in-text links and more pictures can be added to this article. In addition, there are many direct quotes in the entry and it would better to summarize some of them (see Wikipedia:Quotations) and there are two sentences not sourced. Overall, this article is really well edited.(Feihuamengxue (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)）