Talk:Stanley Ho/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: No longer a penguin (talk · contribs) 08:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this candidate for Good Article shortly. I will be back in a few hours with the comments.No longer a penguin (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial Review
I have reviewed the article for obvious failures of the six Good Article criteria.

The article has BLP sources tag dating back from 2009 and an Update tag which has been introduced recently (by the nominator). The tags themselves are sufficient for quickfailing. The sources tag is obviously still valid - very large parts of the article are not sourced at all, especially:
 * Claims are made in the lead section that are not covered in the article and need sourcing, such as "He is also Macau's wealthiest person and amongst the wealthiest in Asia", "It is also estimated that his enterprises employ almost one fourth of the workforce of Macau", "he has also invested in mainland China, Portugal, North Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Mozambique, Indonesia and East Timor" and so on.
 * Extraordinary claims such as "He became the first student from Class D to be granted a university scholarship" need solid inline sourcing.
 * The entire career section needs sourcing, except the last paragraph.
 * The entire Current Positions sections needs sourcing and updating, or should be removed entirely.
 * BLP claims such as "His grandchildren are a perennial subject of local social columns and paparazzi" should be sourced inline.
 * Non-linear relations section is entirely not sourced.
 * Honors section is mostly not sourced.

Although sourcing is the biggest problem, there are also issues in other areas visible at a glance:
 * The article does not seem to comply with the manual of style for lead sections. The lead does not summarize the article and seems to be entirely detached from it.
 * Coverage touches upon all the major areas (early life, career, family, philanthropy, honors), but early life and career are covered insufficiently for anything resembling broad coverage. Also, there seems to be nothing covered beyond 2011.

All in all, the article is far from becoming a Good Article and should be improved substantially before another nomination.No longer a penguin (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)