Talk:Annie Knight
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.svg){kind=small} | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (centre, colour, realise, program, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Annie Knight was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 11, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | A fact from Annie Knight appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 February 2026 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| .jpg) |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Annie Knight
- ... that Annie Knight (pictured) and Drake Von have both announced events inspired by Bonnie Blue's "1,000 men in a day" challenge?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Reload (Metallica album)
- Comment: Von was mainspaced on 3 February, Knight was just published.
Created by Launchballer (talk) and Moondragon21 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 367 past nominations.
Launchballer 11:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Us Weekly source for age/date of birth
Regarding this removal per WP:USWEEKLY, the relevant statement was that Knight was 28 years old at the time of publication, hardly a contentious claim. Whether the citation appears in the lead section or something like an "Early life" section makes no difference.
If the "born 19XX or 19XX" date format is causing problems with vandalism, the way to deal with that is through semi- or full protection, not removing appropriately sourced information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
GA review
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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Annie Knight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dr vulpes (talk · contribs) 22:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- There is really only a lead a single section about their Life and career which is only two paragraphs. Also the source for the age needs to be figured out born in year1 or year2 isn't really GA material.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Follows most of the style guide, some of the inline citations could be revised so they are in the correct order
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Sources are listed correctly
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- There are some good sources such as the Gold Coast Bulletin, , and Vulture. There are also some sources that aren't great and lean towards being tabloids like US Weekly, Herald Sun, and Marie Claire Australia. Also realestate.com.au is just a post for the REA Group.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Passed Earwig's copyvio and quick Google search
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Covers topic but the total article is very short for a GA. There are only like three paragraphs covering the subject. The article just summarizes a some collection of news events but doesn't include any real depth about them.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- article is concise and follows summary style
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- the article is neutral which is good. The income change ($30k to $100k) in the article that comes from the Vulture source isn't from an independent source it's according to her.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no recent history of edit wars
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- cc-by-2.0, cropped from another image on commons
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This article is way too short, does not cover enough of the subjects life, relies on tabloids, and needs some serious additions before meeting GA status. If there are fundamental disagreements on this assessment, I fully welcome having someone else reassess it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
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.
- @Dr vulpes: To take the above point by point:
- WP:GACR#3 only requires that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic; it does not require that the article be comprehensive. A GA does not need to be long if the information can be expressed concisely or require information that (as far as I'm aware) is not in any of the sources. (But if you can point out information I've missed, I'll gladly add it. Especially her age...)
- Of the four sources you cite, Us Weekly and Marie Claire are long-established entertainment magazines, Realestate is a mirror from the Courier Mail (though I haven't been able to find the original), and both the Herald Sun are tabloid format, not tabloid style. All four are used either for non-contentious claims or injunction with better sources.
- Vulture may well have got the income change from Knight, but it puts it in its own voice; it does not attribute.
- In short, yes, I fundamentally disagree with the assessment.--Launchballer 11:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Launchballer:, no comment on anything else, but I would recommend avoiding Herald Sun as much as possible. They do not have a reputation for accuracy or fact checking and have been known to publish deliberate distortions. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 426#Reliability of the Herald Sun where I linked prior discussions at WP:RS/N in which the publication was mentioned or discussed. TarnishedPathtalk 13:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)