User:Bandit039/sandbox

"Gold as an investment" Improvements Draft

My edits/improvements to the article in bold

(New material under Hedge against financial stress) A unique feature of gold is that it has no default risk.

The last major currency to be divorced from gold was the Swiss Franc in 2000. (added citation)

Fake gold coins are common and are usually made of gold-layered alloys.[41] (added citation)

U.S. citizens may be taxed on their gold profits at collectibles or capital gains rates, depending on the investment vehicle used.[60] (reworded and removed numerical rates due to tax reform)

Bullish Investors may choose to leverage their position by borrowing money against their existing assets and then purchasing or selling gold on account with the loaned funds. Leverage is also an integral part of trading gold derivatives and unhedged gold mining company shares (see gold mining companies). Leverage or derivatives may increase investment gains but also increases the corresponding risk of capital loss if/when the trend reverses.

Gold rounds look exactly like gold coins, but they have no currency value. They range in similar sizes as gold coins, including 0.05 troy ounce,1 troy ounce and larger. Unlike gold coins, gold rounds commonly have no additional metals added to them for durability purposes and do not have to be made by a government mint, which allows the gold rounds to have a lower overhead price as compared to gold coins. On the other hand, gold rounds are normally not as collectible as gold coins.

Article Evaluation

Dickson He, 1/20/18, Professor Carleton

For my tentative research question, "what is the modern utility of gold after demonetization?," I examined the Wikipedia article, "Gold as an Investment." Overall, the article was well-written and very informative except for minor hiccups as expected from multiple contributors. This includes very minor issues in grammar and some seemingly newly and hastily added content, such as the part on Venezuela's export.

I found the article pretty neutral especially considering the evangelistic fervor of many gold bugs. It did not blatantly advocate gold's use, but mainly stated what it is used for from an investment perspective. Most of the article is relevant to my research topic except for much higher details on the mechanics of gold investment, such as its various mediums and taxation. The viewpoints are well-covered, although greater and more research could be placed on its relation to economics.

In terms of citations, they were abundant and reaffirming although some came from websites known for including opinions like The Huffington Post and various gold promotion websites. However, it seems only neutral and factual information was extracted from these non-official sources. It also includes citations from reputable players in the gold industry like the LBMA and World Gold Council.

This article is part of WikiProject Economics and WikiProject Finance in high importance of the B-class, meaning that it is close to reviewed "good article status." The talk page also has very spirited and informal debate, though usually on narrower issues.

Overall, while the Wikipedia article is not perfect, it provides a broad surface review and contains enough information to educate me on the basics of the subject.

Review Comments

Sagar Tambi

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

There is information relevant only when I go to the original article and look for that information. If there would have been headings then it would have been more easy to understand.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is neutral without any biases toward a particular position.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Since, the information added into the article is not much to have an impact on it, so I cannot say if it is over or underrepresented.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Citations are there but not from any scholarly sources because it is from CBS News, The NY Times, and onwallstreet.com.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The sources are taken from news articles so it usually tends to be biased. However, in those little changes you made the information seems neutral.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? The information seems up to date.

Yes, the information seems up-to-date. Although, the taxation reform hasn't been reworded in the original wikipedia page like it is done in the sandbox.

Bryan Peng

The current rough draft makes me think that you have some idea regarding structure, but you are unable to find points on which you can expand on and add significant content. I see facts here and there, but nothing that is lengthy and would be a significant addition to the current article. Some of the bolded content is distracting and I'm unsure of why it is bolded/its importance. The current sentences are neutral and does not lead the reader to a specific point of view. No citations yet, only one article linked. It's a New York Times article, so it seems reputable, but it is from 1999 and therefore not current. You may need to provide context, unless there already is context, regarding the use of gold as an investment. I am not sure about the relation of gold rounds to levering up to invest in gold - if you can expand on each idea, that might work better.

Note: I do see your note regarding addition of content later on. Please let me know if you would like me to review your draft after you have added more.