A company called Data Storage Corporation lost a lot of money and its shares became cheaper. Gold and oil became more expensive, but some European markets went down a little bit. People in Europe borrowed more money and some factories in Italy felt good about their businesses. In America, people bought more houses and felt better about how things are going. A company called Walgreens said it will make less money than expected. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and inaccurate, as gold did not gain 1%, but rather 0.97%. This is a minor difference, but it shows a lack of attention to detail and accuracy in the article.
2. The article focuses too much on individual stocks and their performances, while neglecting the broader market trends and indicators that would provide a more comprehensive picture of the financial situation. For example, the article does not mention the performance of major indexes such as the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq Composite, which are more relevant for investors than individual stocks.
3. The article uses vague and ambiguous language to describe some data points, such as "worse-than-expected" financial results for Data Storage Corporation. This term is subjective and does not give any concrete information about the actual performance of the company or its competitors in the industry. A more objective and informative way to describe this would be to compare the results with analyst estimates or previous quarters' results, and explain why they were disappointing.
4. The article includes irrelevant and unrelated information, such as the Chicago PMI data and the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, which have no direct connection to the topic of gold prices and earnings forecasts. These data points may be interesting for some readers, but they do not contribute to the main argument or analysis of the article.
5. The article ends with a promotional message for Benzinga's services, which is inappropriate and unethical for a news article that should be objective and impartial. This shows a conflict of interest and a lack of professionalism on the part of the author or the publication.