IMO Gordon always does a first-class review and sticks to the facts.
If you want to just "stick to the facts" then you can go read the specification sheet on Canon's own website. That's what "sticking to the facts" is. The whole point of a review is someone spends some significant time with a product and then tells you about what their particular experience with it was like, which you can then compare against your own requirements and get a better understanding of whether the product in question is likely to suit you or not.
Gordon doesn't spend much time with the equipment, operates under embargo (mutual agreements with a manufacturer about when, where, and what he can say, in exchange for early access to the product) and 90% of what he says in any given video is just rephrasing the manufacturer's marketing copy. Most of the time he's also not using production units and draws conclusions without so much as glancing at a consumer-facing result. (For example, talking about image quality before raw processing software has been updated to actually support the camera or lens.)
A "first-class review" of a camera or lens isn't—ever—something that comes out in the first few days after announcement or release. The reviewer needs to have enough time with it to test it in a variety of scenarios, software needs to receive updates to actually handle the files or lens profiles, and they need to explain their experience beyond just rewording the spec sheet and PR-penned taglines. The same goes for any other type of product you can name. "Sticking to the facts", regurgitating specifications, is not a review. A good reviewer is not one who tells you what you've already decided you want to hear or takes 20 minutes to ponderously repeat what you could read for yourself in 5; a good reviewer is someone who tells you
their thorough experience, regardless of if that lines up with your expectations or the manufacturer's claims or not.