The Atlantic source [1] also states that there are two more Chinese language sources in Changjiang Daily and Wuhan Morning News. It would be great if a Chinese editor could find those. If you can find them, you can ping me and I will add if you prefer. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The majority of the article looks ok, but it currently also cites NY Post and an opinion piece. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Rosguill: Hi you tagged the article because one source you question as unreliable? Normally you would tag one source, so I removed the tag. Is an opinion source and NYPost deemed unreliable on a company stub? The content is certainly not promotional ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Jtbobwaysf, two different sources: the NYPost, which is generally unreliable, and an opinion piece in the LA Times [2]. Admittedly, NYPost's status is in the process of being established, but the consensus in the ongoing discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com) seems to be towards unreliability. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Rosguill: ya, i see your point now. The opinion piece is written by the guy who wrote the book on this company so it seems ok to me. We dont have to meet any BLP standards here and this is CORPSTUB. That was my logic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- It's not a BLP, but the claims in the article are potentially contentious. I think that the opinion piece is ok for now given the author's presumed expertise (although the article is perhaps overly reliant on sources that they authored). I'll mark the NYPost cite with an inline-tag. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
