Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Order of Nine Angles/1

Order of Nine Angles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was GA'd in 2016, and has been updated little since then, with the exception of piecemeal and low quality additions of news sourcing of various Incidents members were involved with, which has now been split to another page.

So that problem is solved, but what remains is much more difficult, which is that this article incorporates no scholarship in the past 9 years, when in that period the group has become far more notorious and many more high quality writings on it have come out since then than in the whole of the period before it. [1] versus [2] to give an example. Entirely absent from this article is content and high-quality sources relating to the period where the subject has become the most notable.

It therefore fails the GAC#3, the broadness criterion in missing out on an entire decade of the group's history and all modern sources on it. I mentioned this on the talk page but it remains unaddressed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support the idea that more recent sources should be integrated into the article, and am happy to set about doing so. Accordingly, I see no need for the Good Article status to be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made a start on integrating material from some of the post-2016 academic publications into this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA and Midnightblueowl: do you feel that improvements of this article are still needed, or that it now meets the GA criteria? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 What is here now is enough to meet the GA criteria IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.