Talk:INRIX
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
I believe the article on INRIX is notable and significant.
- INRIX and its technology is often written about by reliable sources, such as the Wall Street Journal[1], Forbes[2], PC World[3], and Red Herring[4].
- The company supplies significant entities such as Ford[5], MapQuest[6] and TomTom[7].
- Corporations of similar size in Kirkland, Washington are listed in Wikipedia.
- Companies in the same industry (Tele_Atlas, Traffic.com) as INRIX are listed in Wikipedia.
I welcome discussion on the importance and/or significance of INRIX and the technology topics involved in their industry.
--Jimmywoo (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Based on the citations you provided that I checked, I agree with your estimation of this company's notability and have removed the speedy deletion tag. Good luck with adding material to the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Introduction edit
Hi, as I read the introduction part, I'm wondering myself if I'm not reading an advertisement for this company. So maybe this part should be re-written in a more objective way ? What you guys are thinking about that ?
Guilhem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilhem SMY (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggested rework of INRIX page edit
My name is Mark Burfeind and I work in the marketing department at INRIX. The current page is marked as an advert, and the proposed draft addresses these concerns. I would like to share a draft as a replacement for the current page. I was hoping a disinterested editor might take the time to take a look and let me know if they have any feedback.Mburfeind (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for making this transparent approach, and for your message on my talk page. Rather than replacing the whole article with your draft, I suggest that it is added a section at a time, which should allow for a clearer view of the changes. Overall your proposed draft looks well-written and well-sourced, but it also seems at first glance to miss out content that could be perceived as not being positive like mentioning that one app does not give turn-by-turn directions. We need to be careful to keep the article neutral. I'd be happy to do this but I'm not editing much at the moment so it might take several days to complete. If any other non-COI editors want to help out too (or give an opinion on the approach) that would be great. Lineslarge (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)