Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Order of Nine Angles/1
=[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Order of Nine Angles/1|Order of Nine Angles]]=
: {{al|Order of Nine Angles|noname=yes}} • • Most recent review
: {{GAR/current}}
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. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22order+of+nine+angles%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_ylo=2017&as_yhi=] versus [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22order+of+nine+angles%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_ylo=&as_yhi=2016] 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)