Talk:Zopa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected[edit]

due to repeated vandalism from hbs.edu IPs. ed g2s • talk 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more peers to ZOPA beyond Prosper, including Virgin Money, and Lending Club. --05runner (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this company have a separate page? Surely it could form part of "Peer-to-peer Banking", or something like that. Otherwise it look like an advert. 124.120.130.151 (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable companies get articles in their own right. Zopa has quite enough media coverage to justify an article. If you feel any of the specific content seems like an advert then please say what part and what you think is wrong with it. If there is agreement that it is promotional then it will be changed. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that adequate media coverage makes a company notable. Is this general wikipedia policy?124.122.143.145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

File:Zopo-logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Zopo-logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like marketing material[edit]

The tone of the article feels like its been written by their PR department, with comments like "Since the launch of Safeguard in May 2013, bad debt risks for lenders have been eliminated.". Unlikely given the fund is £6m with lending of £1bn. All lending is at risk of default, with returns reflecting the level of risk. Nothing wrong with that, but the article needs to be re-written in neutral tone. Vicarage (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zopa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestions for Zopa Wikipedia Page[edit]

I've rewritten the page in a more neutral tone and added 3rd party reference links rather than links to the Zopa Blog post. Have a read and see if you think it's up to snuff to remove edit templates. Trying to make it read less like an ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaoamerLondon (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing violation flags[edit]

Hi there. I've just made a couple of factual edits (correcting the founders list, for eg), but also wanted some help on the tone to remove the violation flags at the top of the page. It seems neutral and fully cited now. Please could someone advise? (in the interests of full disclosure - I work for Zopa. We'd like the page to be in the best shape possible - accurate and fully in line with wikipedia's guidelines) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara198500 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed advert and third party violation flags, which date back to Feb 2017. If you want to restore them go ahead, but please give your reasons. The advert flag is correctly used when an article reads too much like an ad. In my opinion this doesn't. Any page about a company runs that risk, so it's a matter of judgement. The third-party flag is used to flag up when the article relies too much on a single source. This article now has plenty of references and links to a variety of journalistic sources. Disclosure: I have no links to Zopa and don't work for them and never have. About seven years ago I worked for a UK charity that referred some clients to Zopa as a possible affordable lending source. Obviously we checked out both the clients and Zopa to see if this was appropriate before going ahead. Apart from that I have had no contact with Zopa. Istobe (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's much improved.
Without looking closely, it still reads like public relations copy and much of the sourcing seems poor.
There are duplicate refs, poorly identified refs, and similar problems.
There were some blatant COI-related problems which I removed. I have to wonder if there are more just not so obvious. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating intro line[edit]

Hi there. I work at Zopa and wanted to make a suggestion for a change to the intro line of our entry. We recently closed the P2P side of our business. While this is covered later in the entry, for the avoidance of doubt for those exploring P2P options/ our existing customers, I wonder if we could make it explicit up front? EG:

Zopa is a British financial services company which began as the world's first peer-to-peer lending company in 2005 and later gained a banking licence. In December 2021, Zopa closed the peer-to-peer side of its business to fully focus on Zopa Bank.

ArthurKirby (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I redid the intro so the current nature of the business is now in the 1st sentence, and added the P2P closure as suggested. --Wire723 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zopa&oldid=1205466852"