Talk:Institute of Internal Auditors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Austingarza.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not the only global organisation or qualification by a long shot
Made some changes - particularly to the CIA section - reflecting the fact that the IIA is far from the only internal audit standards setting body, and the CIA is far from the only internal audit qualification. Indeed, it isn't even preeminent outside the US, and certainly isn't the only global certification. If a source could be found, the article could be altered to say that the IIA is the largest (if that is even true)? It would probably also make sense to name some of the competition in the article. If only there were enough hours in the day... Eldaec 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Citations
Added additional citations from three sources.

Advertising Flag
IIA is an organization and the page is written in a neutral tone, no point in flagging unless you hate accountants. Shadygulf (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The writing is not neutral. The tone evokes "Look, here's their mission! Their leadership is dynamic! Their role is critical!" Wikipedia's interest is in what the organization is and does; it has no opinion on whether it is critical (i.e., it has no opinion on whether the absence of this organization would be disastrous) and it doesn't issue opinions on whether something amounts to such subjective concepts as "dynamic leadership". The article is largely speaking on their behalf, or as though it is, and at a level of detail in addition that betrays this. (Looking at it now, I'm seeing that much of what has been added to it is not encyclopedic information about the organization but the organization's own details of interest only to those who are already involved with it. I'm going to take some time later, double-check my evaluation of it, and slim it down.) Largoplazo (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is helpful in teaching and this flagging is unnecessary. Auditing isn't everyone's cup of tea, but this is not full of exclamation points.Kmccook (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing about your remark addresses the concerns I raised. "Promotional" is not limited to "literally full of exclamation points and not being everyone's cup of tea". I can't even imagine what you think being or not being everyone's cup of tea has to do with whether something has promotional content in it. Largoplazo (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)