 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Sources edit
I have some issues with this article. I link 8 cititions from the most reliable sources like The NY Times, The Huffington Post, The Guardian and etc., but anyway issue about more cititions appears. The second issue about orphan article is the question of time I think. Because this article is new and during some time there will be more and more articles about freelance, remote work with links to this article, I am sure. And what about Conflict of Interest, I am sure, that the topic of this article is worldwide remote work, the way of developing yourself as a professional, so we don't prosecute any type of benefit or profit and just try to share our mission and give a chance to be professional. Thank You All, and hope You will review this article again and remove issues templates. Thank You in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikollozo (talk • contribs)
- The problem is that you just tossed in some random mentions of the company at the bottom - they are at best passing mentions, but the issue is that they don't support the claims in the article. What is needed is to reference those claims, although I think this will need to be heavily edited to be less promotional either way. In regard to the conflict of interest tag, that comes from the need for this to be evaluated by someone independent of the company. - Bilby (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)