Talk:Realtor.com/Archive 1

(Second) edit request to expand and update article

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Hello again. User:Altamel declined my previous edit request, but I've worked to improve the draft based on their concerns. I've noted changes to the draft above, and pinged User:Altamel, who has said they may not revisit this request. I think the draft is a major improvement over the current article, and I am hoping User:Altamel or another Wikipedia editor agrees and will copy over the proposed text.

As a reminder, I am proposing changes to this article on behalf of Move as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I will not edit either article directly and ask independent editors to review them for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. I've saved my Realtor.com draft here. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having concerns about the "own work" logo usage. Perhaps I'm missing something on Commons? Also, does the website snapshot really need to be included in the infobox? What does it provide? VB00 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@VB00: Thanks for replying. I am not sure what updates should be made to the logo file at Commons (which was added before my work on this project). I was just trying to add the image that was already uploaded. If you prefer, I can upload the logo under fair use here at English Wikipedia. Would that help? As for the screenshot, I thought to include as this is a common thing to add to infoboxes, especially for articles about apps/software/websites, but if you don't think the image is helpful, that's no problem. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@VB00: Pinging again, just in case. Also, are you willing to take a look at the rest of the draft, as well as the logo and screenshot? Inkian Jason (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really have the time to go over the whole draft. Just decided to point out some problem areas of the request. Hopefully, someone else handles it. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Y

• Updated infobox has been added per compromises with Inkian Jason from drafted proposal. I left some empty parameters that could feasibly be needed. The entire infobox exists as a template with instructions, so I did not include hidden instructions. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 12:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Y

• Revised lead reads as straightforward and harmless. Therefore I have amended the article by copying over the proposed text. As I stated in my edit summary, you have citations to support lead further within proposed expanded article. Fylbecatulous talk 15:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: Thanks for your edits so far, and looking forward to future edits as well, if you're still willing. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Inkian Jason, agreeing with reviewer in above section for first request: Your 'History' section is quite dense with jargon; the aptly named ' wall of text' and I repeat 'jargon'. Paragraph three and four are especially unclear: and I can't really say why. I understand the concept: I am familiar with Trulia and that article is like a breath of fresh air: clearly stated in understandable language. Or the linked article for Porch (company) is good. Please look at Linotype machine: the lead and 'design' sections, a subject I know well. Perhaps you do as well. However ask if this is going to be a enlightening educational article to laypersons. I don't know what reading level articles are supposed to be. I pasted the History section (without cite numbers) into this website: https://readable.io/text/ and it scores that text from grade 11.5 to 13.7. This to me is college textbook level and above whatever we are aiming for. When I wrote newspaper articles, we aimed for grade 8. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 12:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: Thank you for your additional feedback. I've made some changes to the draft based on your feedback, which I hope you will find satisfactory. Please let me know if you have any other concerns, thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Altamel and Fylbecatulous: Hello again. Sorry to bug, but I was wondering if either of you might have a moment to revisit this edit request. Altamel, you've said you cannot guarantee immediate replies, but I want to keep you in the loop. Fylbecatulous, you've been helpful by partially implementing this edit request, and I'm hoping we can address the draft's other sections. As a reminder, I've addressed some concerns expressed by both of you, and this diff shows changes made to the draft since it was published back in September. I'm hoping you both consider these appropriate and helpful trims and wording changes. Fylbecatulous has addressed the infobox and introduction already. Might either of you be wiling to look at the "Overview", "History", and/or "Promotion and recognition" sections? If neither of you are interested, or I don't hear back in a few days, I'll ping some other editors from WikiProjects for help. Thanks again for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision suggestions have been made at User talk:Inkian Jason/Realtor.com, though they could probably be resolved after the fact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks for reviewing the draft. I've made some changes to the draft based on your suggestions. Do you have any other concerns, or are you willing to replace the article's markup appropriately? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As at the other page, I just did a copyediting once-over, and have not looked at the sourcing in any detail; someone who deals with COI/PROMO potential regularly should do that. From my quick examination and comparison to the standing version, it looks like good within-the-rules paid editing work, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am back to offer a status update for this request and invite an additional editor to possibly implement the proposed draft:

• In September, I made these improvements to the draft based on feedback provided by User:Altamel.
• In October, I made these improvements to the draft based on feedback provided by User:Fylbecatulous, who has addressed the infobox and introduction already.
• In November, I made improvements to the draft based on feedback provided by User:SMcCandlish.
• I've also addressed comments made by User:VB00 above.

All the feedback provided by editors mentioned here is much appreciated and I am hoping that following my updates to the draft in response, someone will feel ready to copy over the proposed "Overview", "History", and "Promotion and recognition" sections appropriately. As I mentioned on November 7, I'm also pinging other editors to find someone who can help. @Northamerica1000: I see you're an active editor and listed as a participant of WikiProject Companies. Do you have any interest in reviewing and implementing User:Inkian Jason/Realtor.com appropriately? As a reminder, this diff shows all improvements made to the draft since originally published, and is a companion draft to User:Inkian Jason/Move (company), which has also received some constructive and positive feedback from User:SMcCandlish at Talk:Move (company). Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No one should consider me a gatekeeper of any kind on this; I just suggested some improvements (which seem to have been made). If someone else is satisfied that the sourcing and tone are in good shape, it looks like it's good to go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't foresee myself becoming involved with this. Working on other matters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Thank you for your quick reply. No problem, I'll try to find another editor. Inkian Jason (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Y Close as partially implemented with explanations. So many changes have gone back and forth that this just needs a new beginning. Even the infobox in the draft is a new or restored historical version. I cannot even summarise what I accomplished did except revise the lead, which I believe has undergone no further alterations. Thanks as always to Inkian Jason. I did add a stub category tag to article proper since Inkian Jason did so for the WikiProjects on talk page. Fylbecatulous talk 13:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(Third) edit request to expand and update article

@Fylbecatulous: Thanks for closing the above request. I think starting a fresh request is a great idea.

For this new edit request, I am hoping reviewing editors will review and implement the "Overview", "History", and/or "Promotion and recognition" sections proposed at User:Inkian Jason/Realtor.com. I've received helpful feedback so far, and updated the proposed draft based on suggestions by multiple experienced editors. This third edit request is a good opportunity for the editors mentioned below, or others who have been uninvolved so far, to consider implementing this markup appropriately.

Here's a brief overview of the edits I've made to the draft based on feedback to date:

• In September, I made these improvements to the draft based on feedback provided by User:Altamel.
• In October, I made these improvements to the draft based on feedback provided by User:Fylbecatulous, who has addressed the infobox and introduction already.
• In November, I made improvements to the draft based on feedback provided by User:SMcCandlish.
• I've also addressed comments made by User:VB00 above.
• This diff shows all changes made to the draft since I placed it in my user space.

Finally, for quick reference: this diff shows all edits made to the article in main space so far to implement my draft, specifically updates to the infobox sidebar and introduction.

I've pinged multiple WikiProjects and individual editors about the draft, and received compliments, but unfortunately no editor has implemented the aforementioned sections to date. As I mentioned in my original edit request, I've worked hard to expand the current article into a thorough and neutral company overview and history, using appropriate sources, and I'd like to think the draft is a vast improvement over the existing stub. As a final reminder, I am proposing expanded and updated Move and Realtor.com articles on behalf of Move, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I will not edit either article directly because of my COI, and ask independent editors to review them for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability.

Hoping "third time's a charm", and I'm happy to tackle one section at a time, if preferred. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Overview"

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Since I'm struggling to find volunteers to review the draft in its entirety, I am splitting the request into multiple parts. For now, I am seeking an editor to review just the "Overview" section seen here: User:Inkian_Jason/Realtor.com#Overview. This section is just 6 sentences long. @Fylbecatulous: I am curious if you'd be willing to take a look, since this is very short and similar to the update you made to the introduction. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

More information Text proposed by Inkian Jason, Text as it appears in the Source Material ...

Comparison of texts

Text proposed by Inkian Jason	Text as it appears in the Source Material
"Realtor.com is a real estate listings website operated by the company Move, which is owned by News Corp. The website is licensed to operate by the National Association of Realtors..."	"Realtor is operated by Move Inc., which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. It has a license to operate from the National Association of Realtors."[1]

Close

References

1. [1]

   Levy, Nat. "Realtor.com's new features bring augmented reality, image recognition to home-buying". GeekWire. Retrieved July 7, 2017.

1. The proposed text above is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material.
2. The other proposed text contains information which is already present in the infobox, namely, employees of the company who would effectively have their names listed twice but with no apparent reason for the redundancy.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  16:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: I noticed you implemented the proposed content, but then reverted your own edit. Can you clarify your reasoning? Overviews often include mention of key personnel, even when they are mentioned in the infobox. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Inkian Jason, [: please do not ping me. You are getting what you are paid for; I am not. I saw nothing wrong with my additions; especially the style correction to the infobox and the needed amendment to the introduction for style, but while I was working your request was declined by a good faith editor who is trying to clear out the backlog. Peace. Fylbecatulous talk 16:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"History"

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. See below for an explanation of changes implemented.

Further to the above request, I am seeking an editor to review just the "History" section seen here: User:Inkian_Jason/Realtor.com#History. The current Wikipedia article is unsourced in its entirety, so I'm seeking to add a neutral summary of the company's history based on appropriate secondary coverage. I've made some improvements to the section based on feedback provided by other editors, and I welcome additional feedback.

With the addition of this section, I hope the "stub" tag can be removed. Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Declined I cannot replace unsourced material with improperly paraphrased material per: WP:COPYRIGHT. You haven't attempted to alter any of the text which I highlighted for you as improperly paraphrased. Your edit request will not be considered until and unless those changes are made. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  19:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Sorry for any confusion, but I was submitting a request to have a separate section of the draft's content reviewed. I was planning on revisiting the "Overview" edit request, but wanted to see if I could get some thoughts about "History" in the meantime. If it's ok, I'll re-open this request since we're talking about different content here. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Partially implemented The "History" section has been partially implemented. Material sourced with reliable, third party sources was retained. Editorialized content was omitted. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you for partially implementing the proposed content. I’m happy to see the article is now sourced, though I was hoping for it to have a more thorough company history. Do you mind identifying which content or sources in the proposed section are problematic, specifically, and I wonder if you might be willing to turn the bulleted list into prose to be more in line with Wikipedia's manual of style? Thanks for revisiting. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply by User:SMcCandlish

Initial comments, mostly tiny tweaks of the kind that would eventually get done in a WP:GA review, so might as well do it all now:

After dealing with these mostly trivial bits, I think this will be a vast improvement, and a shift straight from Stub to C-class. My only lingering concern, and it's hypothetical, is that this article draft covers the just-the-facts basics, then praise and claims of success, by has no inkling of any kind of criticism. I'm skeptical that the entire real-estate or wider world is 100% thumbs-up about this operation. There's almost certainly critical material out there, particularly in light of their market dominance. I would expect the same kind of criticisms experienced by Microsoft, regional cable companies, eBay, and anything else that verges on a monopoly or oligarchy within a particular market segment. A B-class article will necessarily cover that, whether the subject would prefer otherwise. And readers won't trust the article without it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for your very thorough review. I've copied your "Copyediting list" below, and replaced the bullet points with a numbered list for easier tracking. I've responded to 24 of your 30 comments (I'm still working on the rest), and struck out the ones I believe have been addressed by this diff:

1. Use News Corporation not "News Corp". If we did use an abbreviation, it would be on second occurrence and as "News Corp.", per MOS:ABBR. If the company is rarely called by the full name, just use News Corp., then. My own experience tells me this is not true, however, and that we should use the full name.

    Done I've replaced appearances of "News Corp." with "News Corporation". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

2. "subsidiary Move" is too naturally ambiguous, especially in a screen reader; use "subsidiary Move, Inc."; this is the one kind of case in which we include things like "Inc.", "LLC", "Ltd.", etc.

    Done Sounds good. I've updated the draft accordingly. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Link the second occurrence of both company names because they're both excessively vague names that are apt to confuse, and the discussion of their roles is widely separated from their first mentions in the lead section.

    Done I've made sure "News Corporation" and "Move, Inc." are linked in the lead and the "Operations" section. "Move, Inc." is also linked in the infobox. Please let me know if you had something else in mind. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

4. "Elizabeth Banks has been a spokesperson for realtor.com since 2015" doesn't belong in the lead. Who people hire to do their commercials is trivia, and not what people are coming here to find out.

    Done I've removed mention of Elizabeth Banks from the lead. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

5. The lead needs to better summarize the article; see MOS:LEAD. The overall company history is important. Any specific award names are good to mention, too.

   @SMcCandlish: I've added a summary of key events from the site's history, including the original launch and its public facing relaunch in 1996, as well as a line noting recognition of the site's advertising campaigns. The latter isn't something I'd usually request as a COI editor, but based on your feedback, I've included for you to take a look at and see if it works. If it doesn't, that's fine by me and it can be left out. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

   @Inkian Jason: That looks like a definite improvement to the lead, in better summarizing the topic. A potential issue is "has become the largest website in the United States for real estate listings"; do we have a third-party source for that (one that is not parroting the subject's own claims?) If not, I would change this to "and claims to have become" (we have both direct and indirect sources for the claims, and the indirect ones suggest that the claim isn't being challenged as false).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

   @SMcCandlish: Thanks, I updated the wording with this edit. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

6. No neutrality issues leap out at me in the material (though see final comment about what seems to be missing). The "It claims to display 97 percent of residential properties for sale in the United States" is weak and should be replaced if possible by independent reliable sources making this claim (based on their own analysis, not parroting of the business's own marketing – and yes, CEO interviews are marketing).

   @SMcCandlish: The 97 percent statistic comes from this source, which says, "Realtor.com ... says it displays 97 percent of all residential properties for sale in the U.S., updating its information every 15 minutes." This is not said within the interview portion of the article, but I understand if you prefer not to add this claim. This source says, "Realtor.com accounts for 97 percent of the MLS-listed properties in the United States and is the National Association of Realtors' official website." Does that help? If so, I can add or replace the inline citation; if not, let me know how the draft should be updated. I realize neither of these are the strongest sources, I was looking for something that would demonstrate industry standing in a quick bite. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

   It's probably fine to add the claim, with the current wording (i.e., that it's Realtor.com making the claim, not any third-party analysis; SJ Mercury News is just repeating what Realtor.com claims. The point was that it will eventually be better to have a third-party analysis for this, e.g. "according to industry statistics put together by the [some industry association here], ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks, I went ahead and added the inline citation. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

7. Change Originally located in downtown San Jose, the company moved to Santa Clara, California in 2016 to Originally located in downtown San Jose, California, the company moved to Santa Clara in 2016. Establish the context first, since there are many places named San Jose, and the one in Calif. is not the primary topic for that name.

    Done Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

8. I would actually drop the "downtown" part, and just use San Jose, California. It's not normal for us to state what part of town something is in without a good reason, and there's not one here, especially since it's just a former location. It whiffs a bit of marking language (as in "Bob's Falafel Shack is located in exciting downtown Armpitsville").

    Done No problem. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

9. In "The new headquarters were designed by", use was not were. A headquarters, despite the plural-looking structure of the word, is a single thing. An entity can have multiple headquarters, but they are separate things: "Snorkelweasel Enterprises has a manufacturing headquarters in Doobietown, Indiana, and established a new distribution headquarters in Foofoo, Maryland, in 2018." (Even then, it's awkward, and one would probably use "center" on the second occurrence.)

    Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

10. Don't use "realtor.com" lower-case trademark stylization in Wikipedia's own voice, per MOS:TM. The "stylized as" mention it gets in the lead is the only mention it gets, expect when explicitly mentioning it as a domain name per se, not a business operation or service (thus fix "With more than 1.3 million listings by 1999,[21][22] realtor.com had become" to use "Realtor.com" – the domain name is just a DNS record; the business entity is what has the listings and has become [whatever it became in the business world]. There is one explicit mention of the domain name as such, which is best marked up as realtor.com for clarity.

     Done I've replaced all mentions of "realtor.com" with "Realtor.com", apart from the "stylized as" part of the introduction. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

11. We have no idea what "Homestore" is. It is neither explained nor wikilinked. It's also being spelled "HomeStore" in some places. (WP isn't against camelcase in trademarks as long as it's in the official name and is done that way consistently by most sources for that particular entity.) HomeStore is a redlink, while Homestore redirects to Move (company), as a subtopic from its 1990s to 2006 history. This appears to be what is meant in this article, so it should be rendered as Homestore on first occurrence, then Homestore (not HomeStore) without a link thereafter (per MOS:LINKS). The "HomeStore" spelling appears to just be a typo.

     Done I replaced "HomeStore" with "Homestore", and linked the first appearance. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

12. This doesn't make any clear sense: The site was relaunched as RealSelect in November 1996. The domain realtor.com was kept and operated by HomeStore, in partnership with NAR. This could imply either:

    The site was relaunched as RealSelect in November 1996, still at the realtor.com domain name, and was operated by Homestore in partnership with NAR. (Note removal of unnecessary comma toward the end.)

    The site was relaunched as RealSelect [at what domain name?] in November 1996. The domain name realtor.com, used for [some other project ...], was operated by Homestore in partnership with NAR.

13. What does "operated in partnership with" mean? I think the intended meaning is that NAR still owned it, and hired or in some other way collaborated with, Homestore to operate it. Many readers, however, are going to get the impression that Homestore bought it and still worked with NAR to some extent. I really don't know, but it needs revision to be clear.

    @SMcCandlish: Regarding your two points above: In hindsight, what I was attempting to do here was offer a simplified explanation of these moves, but that has left some open questions. The reporting from the time is fairly jargony and also doesn't go into detail about what the "partnership" entails. I've expanded the wording to go into some more of the ins and outs, as possible based on the sourcing. My understand of what happened is that a new entity was set up to manage the site, as a partnership venture with NAR (the new entity was initially called RealSelect, then changed name to HomeStore). The site domain remained realtor.com. The site's name was "Spot Realtor.com", at least for a period of time. The new partnership was funded by venture capital. HomeStore became the owner and operator of the site, and NAR continued to partner, providing the real estate listings. Let me know what you think of the updated wording in the draft, and whether you think any further edits are necessary. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

    Given the complexity of the situation, I think the revision is quite adequate. I would make two copyedits for clarity (and retaining the quotation marks around "Spot Realtor.com" is a good idea, since it's a weird and confusing name [probably why they abandoned it). I would change "at the same realtor.com domain" to at the same <samp>realtor.com</samp> domain name to better distinguish entity names with ".com" in them and actual domain names, and the term is actually "domain name"; .com is a domain, and "realtor" is a subdomain, and "www" another sub-subdomain, in a domain name like "www.realtor.com". Technical quibble, but it matters to geeks. Second, I would change changed its name to [[Homestore|HomeStore.com]] to changed its name to [[Homestore]], because we don't care what their corporate website address was, just the company name (plus all this "dot-com this and dot-com that" stuff is clouding the prose), and we've also figured out by now that the camel-cased "HomeStore" is a typo anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

    @SMcCandlish: Thanks, I've updated the draft accordingly with this edit. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

14. In 1997, realtor.com began partnering with ... – realtor.com is a domain name, and Realtor.com is a business property. Early on at least, it doesn't seem to have been an independent organization capable of partnering with anyone. So, say who did that actual partnering. At that point in time, it's not even clear from this material who the owner was, but my guess is either NAR or a joint venture of NAR and Homestore; either way, that's who partnered with anyone on this. If this is all wrong, and Realtor.com has been operating as a stand-alone business (that happens to have corporate ownership) all along, as it does today (it has its own CEO, etc.), then this needs to be made clearer in the earlier history of the venture.

    @SMcCandlish: The sourcing for these does not get so specific as to note the organization that the media companies partnered with. What is mentioned in sources is that Realtor.com became the exclusive online real estate listings source for them. To eliminate confusion about whether Realtor.com had become an independent entity, I've suggested an alternative wording. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

    Seems much better; avoids confusion as to what "partner" (verb) means in the context, too, since it could imply a joint venture instead of a listings exclusivity deal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

15. Link to Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Service (redirects to GMAC Real Estate, in which it merged, and this is fine).

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

16. "Internet site" is 1995 talk; use website.

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

17. Link to went public; that phrase implies something like "stopped being secretive" to someone who doesn't know much about finance. Remember that WP is used by millions of school children every day.

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

18. "Multiple Listing Services" is a non sequitur. There's no explanation or link. If this is a company name, the name is ambiguous enough it should be rendered as Multiple Listing Services Inc., Multiple Listing Services LLC, or whatever for clarity. Some explanation of who this entity is will be needed. If this is not a company name but a reference to various services, this is overcapitalization of a common-noun phrase (see MOS:CAPS; if your answer would be something like "well, realtors capitalize it all the time ...", see WP:SSF). In this case, if it means multiple services that do listings, then use "multiple listing services". If it means services that do "multiple listings", whatever those are, then hyphenate the compound modifier: "multiple-listing services" per MOS:HYPHEN (even if realtors generally do not; they are not following the WP style guide and WP is not following a realtor style guide).

    @SMcCandlish: There is a Wikipedia article for Multiple listing service. I used capital letters based on the New York Times article, which says, "Homestore's roots date to 1996, when the real estate industry saw the Internet as a threat to a prized possession: the listings of houses for sale, which are controlled by brokers and agents and grouped regionally by industry-controlled Multiple Listing Services. For decades, home buyers had to go to a broker or agent to gain access to listings. But businesses like HomeAdvisor … and an Internet start-up called Homeseekers.com had begun putting listings on their Web sites, challenging the role of agents and brokers as gatekeepers -- and threatening to erode their commissions on home sales." The same article later says, "Through its relationship with the Realtors' group and exclusive deals with many listing services, it outflanked its rivals, who often had to go directly to agents and brokers." This, and the description seen here, lead me to think the solution is simply to lowercase and link "multiple listing services" (which I've done here), but let me know if you have something else in mind. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

    @Inkian Jason: Yep, [[multiple listing service]]s is it. WP follows MOS:CAPS not the NYT style guide (even other newspapers don't follow the NYT style guide, which is widely divergent from other publishers' norms on many things; they see it as a "distinction maker" for them, part of their branding). Be suspicious of any capitalization where some professional writers wouldn't capitalize it and where the capitalization seems to serve no purpose but emphasis or an attempt to imply a special distinction; in any such case, there's probably an MoS rule to lower-case it (in MOS:CAPS or MOS:TM or, for excessive "music caps" like "Do It Like A Dude", in MOS:TITLES).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

19. "direct feeds of listings and competed for listings and traffic" is a breathless and confusing run-on. I think what's intended is "direct feeds of listings, and competed for listings and traffic". Even with that fix and the "Multiple Listing Services" fix, it's not clear what this sentence means; I suspect that the entire "and competed for listings and traffic" bit can be axed, because all businesses and websites compete for business and Web traffic.

     Done I removed "and competed for listings and traffic". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

20. "News Corp agreed to purchase realtor.com's parent company" – change "agreed to purchase" to "purchased". The former is for a sale that hasn't happened yet

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

21. In "and expanded offerings to include ...", the word "offering" is silly marketing jargon; change to "services". It's a service I can pay for, not a sacrifice placed on an altar in worship of me. LOL.

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

22. Link to comScore.

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

23. "New partnerships were formed with Airbnb, encouraging potential home buyers to ..." – Illogical. New partnerships between one business and others do not encourage third parties to do anything. I'm really not sure what this is supposed to mean. Maybe something like "...with Airbnb, to focus on encouraging ...".

     Done I added "to focus on". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

24. "and with Yelp" needs to be preceded by a semicolon not a comma.

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

25. "providing users with information about neighborhood amenities on house listings" – similar issues. Partnering doesn't provide anything to third parties; the goal of the partnership might be a service that provides something. And house listing don't themselves have amenities; they're just words and pictures. And they're not all houses. Try: "to provide users with information about listed properties' neighborhood amenities". Though I'm not sure that's a correct use of "amenities" even in realtor jargon; that means features within the property. Maybe "neighborhood features"? I dunno; ask a realtor. :-)

     Done I replaced with your suggested wording, "to provide users with information about listed properties' neighborhood amenities". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

26. "in neighborhoods of interest" – this doesn't mean anything to our readers. Of interest to whom, in what way? If this is industry jargon, it needs an explanation; if it's not, it just needs to be reworded.

     Done I added "to them". I'm trying to say the partnership gives potential home buyers the opportunity to stay in neighborhoods where they'd consider purchasing a home. Please let me know if you have different wording in mind. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

27. In "As of 2016, realtor.com claimed to display 97 percent of residential properties for sale in the United States, reportedly received 36.7 million unique monthly visitors,[3] and was valued by Morgan Stanley at $2.5 billion", this sentence speaks of three claims made. But these are actually completely separate matters that need separate sentences (two claims by Realtor.com's CEO, which should be third-party sourced if possible), and one claim by Inman.com. If kept as one sentence, then all three claims need a citation each, the first two to the same source. That is, either cite on a per-sentence basis or a per-claim one; don't mix-and-match or the first claims in the long sentence looks unsourced.

     Done Good suggestion. I've separated the sentence into two, and made sure the inline citations are displayed correctly. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

28. "Realtor.com's app introduced augmented reality and image recognition for listings in January 2017". Nope. There are [at least] two apps, and they are inanimate and incapable of introducing anything, and they did not introduce these concepts, but got them as features. And they're features for users not for listings; they're in listings. "Introduced" as word for "added" is more promotional jargon. Try: "Features for augmented reality and image recognition in listings were added to the Realtor.com mobile apps in January 2017". (The passive voice here is fine; it's common in encyclopedic writing, and we already know who the active party is, Realtor.com as a business entity, so repeating the name again, as in "Realtor.com introduced ... into its mobile apps" would be brow-beating the reader as if they're not paying attention.)

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

29. In "Elizabeth Banks ... appearing in the company's YouTube series and targeting millennials buying their first home", drop "and" before "targeting". The marketing is targeting a segment, Banks isn't; she's just reading aloud what the marketing dept. wrote and put on a teleprompter.

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

30. In "for their creativity, use of talent and digital advertising", use a serial comma after "talent", especially since this sentence is already using a serial comma between all three named entities; one should always be used in complex expressions (it's not necessary in "she like apples, peaches and pears", though many would add it for consistency).

     Done Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Doing... Again, I am still addressing the 6 remaining concerns, but wanted to provide a status update and give you a chance to start reviewing my changes to the draft. Thanks again for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Way faster and un-argumentative than my expectations. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, SMcCandlish. I aim to address the rest of your concerns by early next week, and will ping you then. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the last minor quibbles above, this looks "good to go" in my view. CoI editing is difficult, tedious, and always viewed with extra scrutiny, and you're doing it the right way and with considerable patience (especially given that some of my line-items aren't neutrality but clarity matters – more an assessment and polishing process than "is this permissible at all" stuff – but might as well kill two birds with one stone).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Confirming I've responded to each of your concerns, and invite you to review my changes to the proposed draft. As for your concern about the lack of negative criticism, I tried various online searches like "Realtor.com litigation" and "Realtor.com criticism", and came across the following: local-records-office.me, inman.com, chicagonow.com, and mpamag.com. However, I would argue these events have not received significant coverage, and even these sources are not very strong for supporting specific claims in a Wikipedia article. I'm providing these references for your perusal, and I don't recall coming across other negative criticism during the process of drafting this article.

I've also removed the colored font from the draft, which I was using to compare text with the existing article. This should make copying and pasting markup easier, if that's your next plan of action. Thanks again. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave it to later editors to decide what if any criticism is worth including (something of a WP:UNDUE versus WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE analysis). I think it's likely that someone will want to include some of it, but it's a debate people can have. I don't have an opinion on it either way, other than a vague sense that we always aim for balance. Shoe-horning in just "any" criticism to desperately have some at all isn't our approach. There is no company that hasn't pissed off someone somewhere; we probably should have a showing of public concern/debate/scrutiny covered in multiple independent sources before we include it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: copying and pasting ... if that's your next plan of action – Oh, yeah, I can probably do that. I'd been assuming you were going to do another edit request template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC); revised: 12:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason:  Done; I used a clear edit summary about the sandbox source of the merged-in content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC); revised: 12:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for completing a thorough review of the proposed text, and for copying over the markup. I will be revisiting the Move (company) article soon, working to implement the draft I've proposed here. I've already made some changes to the draft based on your comments here, and you're welcome to take another look at the proposed text if you're interested. Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue?

Responding to Inkian Jason's concern above, I agree this is extremely WP:UNDUE. This is a one sentence mention in a fairly long WSJ article and has been broken out into a standalone section here. I'm inclined to simply remove it, however, since it would involve the obliteration of sourced content I'd like to see if anyone objects or has an alternate suggestion first. Chetsford (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove it. Not only is it undue, it is also trying to imply that Realtor.com is sharing people's information and trying to tie it to Facebook's problems of doing the same. Bordering on WP:SYNTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that this was also added by the same user to Azumio and Flo (app), both of which mentions have long since been removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any objection, I've gone ahead and removed it. Chetsford (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have marked this request as answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)