Talk:Keys v. Carolina Coach Co.

Formatting

I have cleaned up this article for a third time to bring it in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This is how Wikipedia articles are formatted. In particular, I have made the following changes:

• remove repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:CONTEXT
• remove date links per MOS:SYL
• fix capitalization of headings per WP:MOS -- Wikipedia uses "sentence case" for section headings, not "Title Case"
• fix formatting of decades per WP:MOSNUM -- "1950s", not "1950's"
• provide bullet points for the wonderfully extensively list of references
• remove links to Jim Crow, which is a disambiguation page -- Jim Crow laws, the article, is already linked
• remove excess spaces between sections per WP:MOS

Ground Zero | t 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please advise as to what aspects of this article are preventing it from being rated B Class or better? Megavoice (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See the grading scheme, explained in this template: Template:Grading scheme. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the grading scheme carefully but it is general. I am still unclear about what the specific items are in this particualr article that have resulted in its C rating. Megavoice (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The saved text does not match the edited text now that I've entered references. There's a missing reference tag inserted but all referenes I've entered are complete. Could you check and see why the entered edits are not correctly reflected? Somehow in the process of entering references an entire paragraph was deleted. Megavoice (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, a closing </ref> tag was missing - see reply to your question on the Help page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I noted your flag about the use of ibid., and I've removed the offending citation. I am anxious to improve the quality rating of this article (currently at a C) and would appreciate some specific input about what is keeping the article at that low level. I am hoping the C rating was a reflection of the lack of internal citations but that is now corrected. Thanks for all your help. Megavoice (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoint

The viewpoint of this article appears not to be neutral.

For example, is it accurate -- indeed, is it intellectually honest -- to characterize the federal Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) as "segregationist" -- or to refer to its "past racist practice" -- as though the ICC had acted on its own initiative in defiance against the controlling legal principles and precedents?

Had the ICC not previously followed the determinant ruling in the case of Plessy v Ferguson?

That is, had the ICC not previously made its decisions by following the Supreme Court of the US?

If the author wishes to criticize the Plessy decision, or if he wishes to criticize the social mores of the first half of the 20th century, that's OK.

However, he seems to tip his hand by his choice of terms; that is, he seems to betray a biased viewpoint.

My comments do not seek to quarrel with the thrust of the article.

However, I do suggest that the author would have better served his position by presenting it in a more objective way.

-- Dr. D.B. "Doc" Rushing

DocRushing (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your careful reading, and I have revised the language accordingly to be more factual and less inflammatory. Megavoice (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keys v. Carolina Coach Co.. 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/20090125055556/http://womensmemorial.org/Education/BHMSys.html to http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/BHMSys.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)