Talk:Consultant
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consultant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Proposed: External links
[edit]- Articles on consulting - removed from Freelancing on the Internet -- Robocoder 15:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Articles on Becoming a Consultant and setting consultant fees.
- Informations regarding freelance SAP Consultant called SAPexpert.
SAPexpert 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)SAPexpertSAPexpert 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the SAP site. Social netowrking sites are generally not appropriate.Montco 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I did a major update on the article including fresh and decent references. This comment section is also over a decade old and thus, I call it done.
Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Changed derivation from Latin
[edit]See for example dictionary.com and The Quill
Purple Banana 11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, updated article and linked with book https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0009840x00994484 (German, but on Latin) Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Untidy 'see also' lists
[edit]This list was very untidy. The types of 'Consultants' referenced does not seem to be definitive, but I have split the concepts and the consultant types. Further concepts and consultant types could probably be appropriately added.
Adrest4 (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, article was thoroughly updated, structured, refactored, etc. Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
edit this article
[edit]This is a great article and give me some definition of the different of kind of consultantNoeer Alotaibi (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, article is even greater now, full update and proper structure, scientific-research references added etc. Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]This is a great article--Noeer Alotaibi (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Ok, and it's even better now. Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Image to the article
[edit]I was surprised by the image added to this article. As the image use policy suggests "the purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central".
As (the) "man delivering a presentation" on the picture doesn't appear to be a notable figure, there is no objective reason for displaying this picture.
Should an image be relevant to increase readers' understanding of the consultant concept, I would rather suggest to display a world famed consultant (for instance a profile like Peter Drucker known as "the Father of Modern Management Consulting"[1] or Frederick Winslow Taylor or ...
I hope no injury was done to any particular interests by removing this picture.--JCL16 (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, is this discussion still of interest and what is the point here, to add a picture? Except for high-gloss business-people images, I can think of MANY alternatives, because Consulting in 2021 has changed a lot. Smart causual is acceptable, some IT-guys in T-Shirts, who consult for decades. I recommend not to add a person-picture, but maybe an environment or something abstract complex. Maybe I try with a proposal. Other than that, the article was in all areas updated, many new references, new structure and a lot of corrections. Closing this discussion, please open new if needed. Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, is this discussion still of interest and what is the point here, to add a picture? Except for high-gloss business-people images, I can think of MANY alternatives, because Consulting in 2021 has changed a lot. Smart causual is acceptable, some IT-guys in T-Shirts, who consult for decades. I recommend not to add a person-picture, but maybe an environment or something abstract complex. Maybe I try with a proposal. Other than that, the article was in all areas updated, many new references, new structure and a lot of corrections. Closing this discussion, please open new if needed.
References
Missing citation
[edit]Hi, the following are remove due to i) no citations and ii) what is state doesn't mean it is reality or good or bad or normality, without citation therefore not so good for readership.
"These online platforms provide consultants with experience working for typical consulting firms to easily transition into freelancing. This means that many consultants have become much more flexible in where they can work and the nature of their work."
So the online platform provides consultants with experience: How do you provide someone with experience in working for typical c-firms? Strange. I think the meaning is that these companies provide work to consultants. Secondly, the "easy transition into freelancing", is first of all not easy and secondly who says this transition is normal, good, a trend, the normal route, etc.? Of course an employer has less costs if you go free and take responsibility and social costs on your side. The coupling with "more flexible" is very unclear, if not cited. Is this so, are you really more flexible? In which sectors? More flexible for what, more work? Just some thoughts. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)