Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Keith Miller/1

Keith Miller

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Keith_Miller/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Strong consensus to delist. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the issues with the article are regardless any change from merge. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , pinging for thoughts.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I haven't changed mine. Pinging for their thoughts.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The issues with the article have not been resolved. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No change. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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