The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:25, 7 February 2007.

Messages left at Piotrus, B&E and Nurismatics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary issue is that the article has literally no inline citations. There is a large references section but it's not tied to the rest of the article.

Additionally the article has many small issues:

• It has statement of dubious veracity such as commenting on gold's unique "acoustic properties", something not mentioned at gold; and "A return to a gold standard is not generally thought feasible in mainstream economics", which has already been complained about on the talk page.
• Lead section has some unnecessary specifics and some missing summarizations. Also too few links in my opinion.
• An immense lack of images, especially in the lead. I'm certain their are some images which could correspond to the text, but at the very least the intro could have an image of gold.

• Added a few images, gold bars, coins, extraction. Joe I 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is very long, long enough to disagree with Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues. It seems like the history section would be ideal to split off into a seperate article.
• Has many minor issues that would be ignored if not for the fact this this is supposed to be Wikipedia's best, for example the first letter of one section is inexplicably bolded, and one subsection is empty. Vicarious 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. It was up to FA standard few years back. It is not now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and factual accuracy (1c), length (4), LEAD (2a), images (3). Marskell 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per Lucifer. Tony 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) PS And it's poorly written, with lots of questionable statements (1a and 1c). For example: "In modern mainstream economic thought, a gold standard is considered undesirable because it is associated with the collapse of the world economy in the late 1920's, and that aggregate supply and demand is a far better means of regulating interest rates, money supply and monetary basis." Both "modern" and "mainstream"? One would do. Logical problem: I do not think that the association with the 1920s is the reason that it's thought undesirable nowadays. There are technical reasons. "Far better means of regulating monetary basis"—Um .... Tony 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.