Talk:Whitepages (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:WhitePages (company))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
An editor has requested a photograph or image to be included in this article to improve its quality. Once the image is uploaded, please remove the |image-needed= parameter from this template.


What are their information sources?

How about the role of this website in stalking and debt collecting? (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


I'll be supporting WhitePages in a public relations capacity on Wikipedia with the aim of improving and maintaining their article up to Wikipedia's standards in a manner compliant with WP:COI. I wanted to start out by introducing myself here to any watchlisters. I'll be working on a first draft offline for consideration by impartial editors. While I'm not always completely neutral, organizations tend to do fairly well improving Wikipedia with my help. I thought I would introduce myself here to any watchlisters. CorporateM (Talk) 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


On WhitePages' behalf, I would like to request an impartial editor consider the proposed contributed article located at: User:CorporateM/WhitePages, which would substantially expand this article. I believe it is neutral, well-sourced and an improvement to Wikipedia. There are two areas where my conflict of interest is more pronounced on this article that I would like to draw attention to, in order to make it easier for a potential reviewer:

  • I did not find as much source material regarding privacy concerns as I would have expected. Just that it's a concern and the site has features around it.
  • VentureBeat posted a very critical piece, followed by another article saying they "cleaned up their act" only two months later (cites 18 & 19). It's very confusing - the original article has four "updates" at the bottom with clarifications or comments. It looks like the reporter may not have realized that when he clicked on US Search, he was no longer on, because his criticisms are leveled at US Search, which is just an advertiser. I think it would be best for a regular disinterested editor to take a look.

CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Request edit[edit]

User:EdJohnston said here that the proposed draft at User:CorporateM/WhitePages was an improvement, though he corrected my spelling (thank you). Since the criticisms I drew attention to are not currently included at all, he felt it was an improvement to just get them in there and let the article improve incrementally, even if they may not be perfect. One of the benefits of taking my COI works through the GA round is getting a second pair of eyes later on.

Anyways, if an editor agrees and feels the content would serve Wikipedia's readers, I would like to ask that someone fulfill the Request Edit by adding it to article-space. CorporateM (Talk) 03:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I replied to the edit request and modified the template to indicate my support for this edit. Since this is a low-traffic page it's probably not worthwhile to wait longer for comments. But anyone who has an opinion should go ahead and add it here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks User:EdJohnston. I went ahead and moved the article to article-space. Often editors agree my COI contributions improve Wikipedia, but insist that I make the edit myself, so I'm usually comfortable doing so as long is it's not a controversial area and I have a clear, unambiguous go-ahead.
Do you think there's anything preventing it from a GAN? I like to use GA reviews just to get second pair of eyes on my COI works and make sure my contributions are up to Wikipedia's standards. CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

The current article is called "" but the article reflects that Whitepages has mobile apps, APIs, business services and other products that are not covered by the ".com" aspect of the article-title. Was thinking we should move the article to something like WhitePages (company)? CorporateM (Talk) 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to move the article to WhitePages (company). EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

I've nominated the article for a Good Article review. This is a good way to get a second pair of eyes on the article and to just make sure my COI works are up to Wikipedia's standards. My hope is the GA reviewer will take a closer look at the criticisms from VentureBeat I mentioned to make sure it's done properly one way or another. In the meanwhile it usually takes about three months for a review, which is plenty of time to see if anyone chirps in on the recent changes. I've also added a connected contributor tag to the top of the Talk page, so if the discussion is archived, my COI disclosure will still be present. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:WhitePages (company)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article. I will be busy on weekdays, but will try to get to it as much as I can. This may take up to and maybe a little over one week. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talkcontributions) 11:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I copyedited the Lead per your note at the GAN Talk page. I also double-checked the citations and added some missing parameters like accessdates, publishers, and fixed some Wikilinks issues; fixed some other grammar and copyediting issues as well, like double periods, extra spaces, etc.
This sentence is sort of bothering me "WhitePages has the largest database of contact information of Americans.[18]" It sounds awkward, but not sure how to fix it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you've done several fixes around here. Here is the "official" review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass! Sportsguy17 :) (click to talkcontributions) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I did a quick Google News search to see if the article was still up-to-date and came across this: "Just a few weeks ago, WhitePages turned a huge page in the company’s history when it bought out its venture capital investors, paying $80 million to buy back shares from Technology Crossover Ventures and Providence Equity." (I'll see if I can find a better source) and this. Seems a lot has happened in the last two months while it was pending a GA review. I'll take a look and maybe use a Request Edit to propose some additions. CorporateM (Talk) 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


It's been about a year since I helped bring the article up to "Good Article" status and I wanted to suggest a couple small updates/additions based on new sources that have come out.

  • Add to the end of the History section in a new paragraph:
  • The beginning of the Services section as a summary/introduction:

CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I implemented the changes after reviewing them for neutrality. As always, I take full responsibility for edits I make under my name. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm using this space to store new sources as they come out. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)