Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Keith Miller/1

Keith Miller

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: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the honourable tradition of early-Wikipedia articles on mid-century Australian cricketers, this 2009 listing is detailed to the point of insanity, with exhaustive statistics on pretty much every international match Miller ever played.

This leads to a total word count of 14000+ (not counting quotes, image captions, or tables) and a pretty certain failing of GA criterion 3b ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail").

Relevant non-GA guidelines include WP:TOOBIG. Shouldn't be that hard for a cricket expert to trim down to a better length. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that there is a merge proposal on the article's talk page, which involves a featured article. This can quickly get messy, so I suggest that the merge proposal be dealt with first, then this GAR can be discussed. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the issues with the article are regardless any change from merge. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, the Australian cricket obsession went deeper than I thought. Early life of Keith Miller, really? Regardless, the issues with this article are palpable and I don't think we should put this on hold while waiting for that merge to happen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with buidhe and TaOT, there's no way this article is going to get better following a merge so the GA reassessment will be needed regardless. Might as well address it now. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1, pinging @Dweller and Z1720: for thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a possibility that the article could get better after a merge, so I would rather evaluate the article for GAR after the merge vote is closed. If editors want to proceed with the GAR now, I'm not too bothered. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for a month now, and buidhe actioned the proposed merge on June 20th. Has anyone's opinion changed? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed mine. Pinging @Dweller, Z1720, Buidhe, and JoelleJay: for their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with the article have not been resolved. (t · c) buidhe 17:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No change. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think we're approaching a consensus to delist. I generally refrain from personally closing GARs where I've weighed in with a delist or keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: The length of the article has not been addressed yet. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (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.