Talk:Stoozing

Improving the article
I've made a start. Please fee free to revert. It still has a long way to go to reach encylopedia standards of course. P Miller (UK) 2006-09-04 14:56 UTC

Further changes made. It still needs a lot of refinement and tidying up - particularly with some thought to adding more links. Again please feel free to revert - this is a democratic experimant in knowledge after all! (Does anyone outside the UK have any experience of doing these same things but calling it something different?) P Miller (UK) 2006-09-05 00:39 UTC


 * I've made some edits for clarity and style - hope they're OK. Can somebody clafiy what "Other mortgages are genuine offset loans that "sweep" borrowers' entire savings balances with the lender and 'off' of their loan account. In either case, the effect is the same." means?
 * I've changed this sentence to clarify the way offsets work: interest is charged on the net debt after savings are allowed for. ManOfKent, 12 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.252.112 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Is it an idea to merge this article with App-o-rama? The two seem very alike. In fact, The App-O-Rama article even mentions stoozing as "In the UK, [doing an App-o-rama] is known as stoozing". Mzyxptlk 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Stoozing and app-o-rama are different. Stoozing is about making money from cheap borrowing, app-o-rama is about making sure your credit score is good for multiple applications Hmallett 10:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: app-o-rama is completely different - at best tenuously related. --Gilgongo (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tone?
What is inappropriate about the tone of this article? Can we just remove the tag? Don't place it there unless you have a problem you discuss here. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC) --JKeene (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can remove it. Be bold.


 * I would like to do a bit of editing for style - it is rather conversational in tone. --Gilgongo (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the inappropriate tone tag. I think the tone is OK now (if a little dense in the "Method" section) --Gilgongo (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rate Tart != Stoozing?
The term "rate tart" is also sometimes used. I thought "Rate Tarting" was different to Stoozing? My understanding of a Rate Tart is someone who frequently moves an existing debt around in order to get the lowest interest rate. This isn't the same as Stoozing, which is borrowing money at 0% interest in order to earn interest on the loan amount. Any objections to removing this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.37.7 (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't remove it, but clarify the difference since, currently, rate tart redirects to this article (and rate tart itself doesn't qualify as anything more than a dictionary definition). &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took a stab at it. However, I don't think I did a very good job, so feel free to improve it.  Part of the problem is that Stoozing is a verb and "rate tart" sounds like a noun. Would that be "rate slut" in the US? &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! I guess the key difference is that a "Stoozer" is not actually in debt - they have all the money in a high-interest savings account - whereas the "Rate Tart" has a geniune debt and is looking to reduce the interest payments on it. 217.155.138.250 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Legality
I think it might be worth saying something about the legality of stoozing. AFAIK, it is legal in the UK, although the definition of a balance transfer for some lenders does imply that the debt being transferred must be a real one. This might make some balance transfers fraudulent it, for example, an SBT card is used. That reminds me: we need to add an explanation of SBT cards somewhere, since I don't thing you can understand how to get started with stoozing without understanding the concept of SBT in the process. --Gilgongo (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Experts Tag
I've been in touch with Stooz, and established that he is aware of and has been monitoring this article, and doesn't feel the need to alter it. I would also say that it's pretty comprehensive. Other experts may well also be contributing now (I notice ManofKent has contributed) so I am removing the experts tag. --Gilgongo (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Review of Stoozing


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

This article obviously has a deficiency of references. There are large swaths of texts that need citation, but have nothing.

Also, there is a lot of jargon in this article, which makes it very hard to understand. Because of that, I'm failing this article. Noble Story (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time. We will strive to improve the article. Incidentally, I wonder if the fact that this article was being reviewed for deletion at the same time as being given a GA review is some kind of Wikirecord? --Gilgongo (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gutted
I have gutted this article as it has no legitimate news sources to back up its content. Please see WP:RS and WP:V and WP:SPAM before readding content to this article. Flowanda | Talk 08:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting several edits that gutted the article
I have reverted several edits by Flowanda. After reading the external links, I find that most of what was stated in this article is true. Please assume good faith and remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. All that is missing here is in-line citation. I have added a citations tag, and if you wish to re-add all the fact tags, or remove sources you think are not reliable, feel free to do so. But deleting 90% of the article is unacceptable. Charles Edward 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)