Talk:Benchmark price

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 25 November 2013 by reviewer Eastmain (talk · contribs).

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Long stub! edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was struck by what a primitive state the article is in, (tho a bit relieved that it is 4 rather than 10 or more years into its life). I think it's pretty damn long for a stub, but quite justly tagged as stubby in spite of its relative length. What shocks me is we've both neglected it's topic so long (well over a decade), and not gotten more than a stub out of this economically fundamental mechanism even within 4 years. I'd be relieved if i were to hear that a multi-editor concerted effort were about to get under way.
--Jerzy•t 14:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic