User talk:Supereditor92

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Redfin. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steamlining Redfin article

Hi there Supereditor92. I've removed some of the promotional-sounding information you (re)added to the Redfin article. I'm happy to help you improve the article, but the information we include needs to be notable, neutral, and verifiable. One way to get a sense of what information might be most useful is to look at articles for other internet companies that have been rated as Good Articles by the editing community. I also encourage you to use your considerable writing talents to improve other articles on Wikipedia as well. Suspicious-minded folks who viewed your contribution history might suspect that you worked for Redfin... just sayin' ;) Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Supereditor92. I got your email. Thanks for explaining things—I think I'm actually the one who owes you an apology. I should have assumed that you were editing in good faith, and it's clear to me now that you are. Sorry for ever doubting you. Anyway, I have some tips for how you can continue to improve the Redfin article.

"technology-powered real estate brokerage" sounds like marketing copy. Even if it is accurate marketing copy, it's still not the best way to characterize Redfin in the first sentence of the article. In an encyclopedia article (as opposed to an editorial, an expose, or a review in a magazine) we should aim for describing the subject in neutral, accurate terms. The aim is not to present Redfin as the best real estate website ever, but to describe the significant features of Redfin in terms that allow it to be accurately compared and contrasted with other real estate websites.
If you want to assert that Redfin pioneered map-based Real Estate search, and that map-based real-estate search is a big deal, make sure that you point to multiple, reliable sources that both a)clearly say that Redfin is the pioneer and b)clearly say why map-based real estate search is a big deal.
In general, avoid citing the Redfin website, Redfin press releases, etc. for anything other than very basic information about the company (like who is the CEO and when they joined). See Wikipedia:Independent_sources for more info on when it's okay to do this. If the only source for a piece of information about Redfin is Redfin's website, then that information probably doesn't belong in the Wikipedia article.
It's not necessary to list Redfin's products. Most internet companies have many different products. People can go to the company website for that information. Having lists of products on the Wikipedia article only makes the article harder to maintain: someone has to update the article every time a new product is added, or one is dropped!
One thing that seems missing from the article, that would be great for you to add, is any information on the founding of the company: who were the founders? What were they backgrounds? I'm sure you have good independent sources for this info. This is the kind of stuff that one expects to find in a Wikipedia article.
I would just plain avoid any extensive discussion of their business model and what makes it "unique". Period. Wikipedia isn't the place for presenting Original research. As you've said to me, you're currently researching Redfin's business model for a class—that's original research! ;) Right now, the best place for that research is in your research paper, not Wikipedia. If Redfin is in fact an innovator/pioneer/disruptor/whatever, someone (maybe you!) will someday write a big article in the New York Times, or write a best-selling biography, about how the company's awesome business model (not paying agents on commission, waiving fees, etc) is the best thing ever. When that happens, I will personally cite that article/book and write up a summary under "Business model" in the Redfin article. Until then, this kind of information just reads like promotional copy from Redfin's website. I would remove the business model section altogether, and at most mention some of the ways that Redfin is different from competitors in a short paragraph inside a "Founding" section. And again: make sure you have good, independent sources.

Hope that's helpful, and that I don't come across as too harsh. I misjudged you before, and that wasn't fair to you. You've done good work on the Redfin article, and I hope you continue to work with us. Feel free to ping me any time if you have questions or want feedback on something. Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]