Talk:Elizabeth Debicki

Godel Incomplete

Missing citation. See https://vimeo.com/55510106 Or IMDb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.166.80 (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done but I'm afraid the source isn't from major entertainment outlets. That short is rather obscure. AdaCiccone (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Reel?

Under Career...what reel? What's a reel? A fishing reel? Sounds like someone "in the Biz" wrote this. Well, the universe does not revolve around Hollywood, Copernicus discovered that! Please rewrite for an audience that doesn't already know what you're writing about. Actually, the whole article could stand a rewrite with simplicity in mind. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reworded to audition tape. AdaCiccone (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elizabeth Debicki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vcam.unimelb.edu.au/news/146
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/action/printArticle?id=2575854
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409150144/http://mag.alumni.unimelb.edu.au/alumni_ths.html to http://mag.alumni.unimelb.edu.au/alumni_ths.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518224253/http://htbulletin.com/read/?p=38 to http://htbulletin.com/read/?p=38
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006230231/http://search.vogue.com.au/fashion/news/behind+the+scenes+at+elizabeth+debickis+vogue+australia+photo+shoot,20713 to http://search.vogue.com.au/fashion/news/behind+the+scenes+at+elizabeth+debickis+vogue+australia+photo+shoot,20713

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elizabeth Debicki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424183346/http://www.performershub.com.au/Interviews.html to http://www.performershub.com.au/Interviews.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729222549/http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/media/1732348/stc_the_maids_media_release.pdf to http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/media/1732348/stc_the_maids_media_release.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/entertainment/movies/leo-sweeps-into-sydney-20110823-1j7ji.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Which pronunciation of her surname does she use? 66.97.20.206 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ElizabethDebicki.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Elizabeth debicki Australian Polish actress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Height

I have removed height from the infobox as it's not relevant to her career/notability. Debicki is not a professional athlete or fashion model. I have also seen height claims of 6'2 "I’m six-foot-two" not just 6'3 / 1.9 M. As we've seen with people like Karlie Kloss, people and agencies can lie or be inconsistent. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I brought the height back but not in the infobox. I believe it's in a much better place (Acting style and reception, albeit put in an efn tag) because the sources there talk about her height in relation to her casting, screen image and costume work. AdaCiccone (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Picture

With, tremendous respect to the important work that Gage Skidmore does, this is not at all a good nor representative picture of the lady in question. Could we look at, finding a different one? Snokalok (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok Changed, albeit still by Gage. Bremps... 21:36, 17 May 2024 (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:Elizabeth Debicki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AdaCiccone (talk · contribs) 09:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: GRuban (talk · contribs) 11:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

First, a caveat: I believe this is my first GA review. I'm an experienced editor (20 years, 100 articles) but not in GAs. I'm doing this under the mentorship of User:AirshipJungleman29, so if I make a complete mess of it, he might step in, but hopefully he won't have to.

Criteria:

1. Well written

a. Clear and concise:

• Lead section: "Debicki's work widened with roles in The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Macbeth and Everest in 2015..."
  • What does "widened" mean here? They aren't her first film roles, they aren't vastly different kinds of roles than she had played before... Not clear.
  • Same in the body where this sentence is copied from almost verbatim.
  • Why are these three particular roles worthy of lead mention? Are they really among her most important? In each of these she plays secondary characters at best, and she has so many roles in her career that I doubt it. Not concise.

 Done. Both the lead and the body have been rewritten. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• "the Marvel Cinematic Universe films Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) and its 2023 sequel, Alice in Widows" - this is just a phrasing nit, but I recommend "... and Vol. 3 (2023),". At first I thought that Alice is the name of the 2023 sequel, giving part of the name makes it clearer, and saying the third film in a series is a sequel to the second is debatably true, but not the most common usage.

 Done. Two of the Guardians of the Galaxy entries have been removed per the rewrite above. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Early life and education section, second paragraph, has sentences describing 2007, 2010, 2009. Why not 2009 before 2010?

 Done. Rewritten by swapping sentences for a more chronological laying out. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Debicki's first professional screen role was in the 2011 Australian comedy A Few Best Men, in which she played a secretary.[13] Her first major screen role came soon afterwards, when director Baz Luhrmann cast her as Jordan Baker in his film adaptation of The Great Gatsby." She's an Australian actress, but we are specifying when we say she was in an Australian film, but aren't specifying when we say she was in an American film? Are American films the default, even for an article about an Australian actress? Specify. Don't know if that goes to "Well written" or "Neutral", but it's one of them. Same for the three 2015 films, and others, are they all American films, and are we just assuming that doesn't need to be said for them?

 Done. Nationality will be used only if it's relevant. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• • Also the link should go to the film, The Great Gatsby (2013 film), not the novel The Great Gatsby; the odds that readers of this article will want to read about the novel instead of the film she had the role in are slim.

 Done. Also added the novel's author. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The Crown and later work (2022–present) Debicki portrayed Diana, Princess of Wales in the final two seasons of the Netflix period drama series The Crown.[53] She played Diana during the 1990s," Slightly confusing, due to the fact that this is the only paragraph if not sentence that doesn't specify when she played a role. Specify this was in 2022, or 2022-3, or whenever.

 Done. Years of the show's run added. Also added years to other titles. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Acting style and reception" section is a bit schizophrenic. First, there are acting style and reception sentences throughout the earlier "Career" parts of the article; I guess that is unavoidable to avoid the "Career" being a bunch of WP:PROSELINE "In year X, she played role Y", but it's not clear which of those should go there and which here. This section however has a first paragraph talking about how she uses her body in acting, then a second paragraph having the lead sentence about ensemble work, one sentence talking about that ensemble work, then it goes back to how she plays roles physically? Reorder, possibly dump the ensemble work sentence(s) entirely if it's only going to be one sentence. I gather "ensemble work" means "she doesn't always have lead parts"? If so, again, that's true for almost all actors. Third paragraph again is schizophrenic, two sentences about height, great, but then the third sentence about sad, wealthy women just does not belong there. Please rewrite; if she really has a distinctive acting style and reception that our sources write about, the section about them should be more coherent. You may want to move some of the acting style or reception sentences from the earlier section here instead for that purpose. Or if her acting style and reception are different from role to role you may instead want to move those comments to each role and dissolve this section entirely. Again, don't know which parts of this go to "Well written" and which parts to "Broad in its coverage; addresses the main aspects; stays focused without unnecessary detail", but it's likely one or both of these.

Not sure if this is considered done but I renamed that section to Acting approach and screen image and rewrote it to reflect the section's new name. I also removed the stuff mentioning ensembles. Please take a look. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

b. Manual of Style: all good

2. Verifiable with no original research:

• Good job archiving all the source links, I clicked on a few dead ones and was very glad to see the archives.
• https://jolitson.com/2013/06/03/elizabeth-debicki-interview/ is credited to "Scene and Heard", which is a personal blog. Now, it looks like it's a personal blog of a professional journalist, so an expert, but this is a WP:BLP, we can't do self published sources other than from the subject, even from experts, that's WP:BLPSPS. However, it also says "An edited version of this story appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on June 2." If you can vouch that essentially this same article was published in The Sunday Telegraph, that would work, but then credit it to The Sunday Telegraph.

 Done. I did find The Sunday Telegraph article but it doesn't support the same point as the Jo Litson article does. So I added a new source from the Guardian. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• White, Peter (15 September 2024). "Elizabeth Debicki Says Playing Princess Diana In The Crown Has Been A "Gift" As She Becomes First Australian To Win In Emmy Category". Yahoo. - isn't actually Yahoo, it's Deadline Hollywood, only reprinted in/by Yahoo.

 Done.

• Can we avoid using Britannica as a source? It's yellow in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and that's because it's an aggregator of other sources, which is basically what we are. Is there anything in Britannica that we can't get from the sources that Britannica uses?

 Done. Removed. I wanted to present stronger sources for her birth date but I think the Golden Globes alone should be enough without the Britannica. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Debicki had recorded an audition tape for the role while working on The Gift at the Melbourne Theatre Company,[14][15]" - I don't think either of those sources back that phrase; they seem to be cast lists of "The Gift".

 Done. Sources moved to the acting credits section. Also, the new Guardian source doesn't explicitly name The Gift so it had to be removed. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Reviews noted her imposing stage presence" - is cited to only one review.

 Done. Attributed to the Guardian only. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Minor and hopefully easily fixable nits with styles of sources don't really go to Verifiable, but I needed to put them somewhere:

• The titles of newspapers and magazines should be in italics, and in a number of your sources they aren't. Examples where they aren't:
  • "Gatsby Dominates AACTA Film Awards, Power Charges TV". Variety - note that later, you have . "Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard Roll on Macbeth". Variety. with it correctly italicized
  • "The Maids - review". The Guardian.
  • "The Maids". Time Out New York. - there are others, please look.
• The last one should be a link to our article, Time Out New York, it's the only mention. Again, a minor nit.
• Similarly, Brown, Emma (19 April 2016). "Elizabeth Debicki's All-Consuming Character". Interview. and Interview (magazine)
• "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 Is Bringing Back Elizabeth Debicki as Ayesha". slashfilm. and /Film ... wow, that wikilink doesn't work, what a weird title. Anyway, at least Slashfilm, that works.
• "The Red Barn – National Theatre". National Theatre. - Department of Redundancy Department and Royal National Theatre
• I'll stop listing sources that need links here, but there are others

 Done. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• I strongly think you should at least mention her height when you talk about her trying to be a ballet dancer in her youth: there just aren't 6' 2" ballerinas. Here is an article about a different ballerina who has been considered too tall at 5' 10.5"! Your sources in the early section that talk about her ballet address this prominently, Britannica and Mindfood in the first paragraphs, as does https://www.allure.com/story/elizabeth-debicki-interview later, likely others.

 Done. Added this at the Early life and education section. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'd like to compliment you on not having a "Personal life" section. At first it leapt out at me as something clearly missing, so I searched a bit on the web and found https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/elizabeth-debicki-very-private-her-230000659.html Yup. Now I wonder why we almost always have a personal life section!

Yep, the sourcing for her personal life is just too thin to justify building a section just for that. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• "Debicki later said Kurzel had cast her in Macbeth after seeing her in The Maids." - er, so what? Yes, a director casts an actress in a role based on what he has seen of her other roles, that's kind of expected. I guess if the Macbeth role made her career we might want every little detail, but I don't think her Macbeth role was the most important thing in her career, was it?

 Done. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

4. Neutral

Yes; I couldn't find any controversies she was involved in as such, except for The Crown which weren't really controversies about her as the actress, more about the liberties taken by the writers.

5. Stable

Sure.

6. Illustrated

A wealth of photos! I admit this is one of the reasons I chose to review this article among the 4 my GA mentor offered, I like photos for articles. That said, I notice the most recent photo of her is 2018 (and that one with her hand over her face). Would you consider using a photo from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Elizabeth_Debicki_in_2026? Not that they're particularly great photos, but there is something to be said for being current. Not a blocker for GA, if you say you don't want to, I will accept that. I was also conflicted about the Diana photo, but wow, it really shows how much she looks like her, so I'm going to WP:IAR.

I've always relied on MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE when adding images and where they're placed. It says images should generally be placed in the section most relevant to what they illustrate. The Commons link you gave currently contains only photographs from this year's Met Gala, so they don't support or illustrate the Film roles and Widows (2017–2021) section. I took a look at the other 2018 images from the Commons and I still think the current one is most appropriate. And yes, I've also noticed that her hand sort of obscures her face but overall, you can still recognize that it's her.

Regarding Diana's picture, it's completely optional. Subjectively and personally, I want the picture to stay because it supports the majority of what the section is about, her Diana's role in The Crown. And also because Commons doesn't seem to have photos of her from 2022-23. Objectively, I'm still fine with removal though. AdaCiccone (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Finally

Well done. Lots of nitpicks, but nothing that can't be fixed. Please fix! Then I will be glad to approve it for GA. I will also ping my mentor so he can say whether I've done everything mostly correctly before removing the "Doing..." tag, possibly he will be horrified and say I did something very very wrong. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review this. Hopefully I can respond to all of the above within the week. AdaCiccone (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

First, I'm new at this, so I might have forgotten to read anything about a 7 day time limit. Second, I'm technically still waiting for my mentor, so even if there is such a thing, it probably shouldn't start until he OKs. Third, I think the sourcing italics and links are not technically GA blockers, and there are a few others I might give on. Do the best you can, clear the real blockers and it should work. --GRuban (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@GRuban Okay I've addressed all of the points above. Please take a look, thank you. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. User:AirshipJungleman29 wants me to confirm that I spot-checked references, and I have. I noticed the same Vulture ref is given twice, and in each case supporting essentially the same sentence, that she played a working class woman in Widows. I think it fits better in the Career part describing Widows and recommend removing that one-off sentence in Acting approach, it still seems out of place. The rest of that section seems much more coherent now. --GRuban (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Kept that point from Vulture in Career, while the Acting approach section now ends with her recognition that she often plays sad, affluent women. AdaCiccone (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Elizabeth Debicki

• ... that Elizabeth Debicki's (pictured) Emmy win made her the first Australian actress to win Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Heavy (Team Fortress 2)
  • Comment: Driveby nom; there's a complete list at Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series and it's the kind of thing newspapers really ought to have checked.

Improved to Good Article status by AdaCiccone (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 421 past nominations.

Launchballer 16:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC).

• ... that Elizabeth Debicki realised she probably wasn't going to be a ballerina after outgrowing her teachers at age twelve?
• ... that Elizabeth Debicki is baffled as to why directors keep casting her as unhappy rich women? Bremps... 23:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Recently promoted to GA and nominated on time. The article is long enough, well sourced, neutral, presentable, and BLP-compliant. Earwig and manual source checks found no copyright concerns. The original hook is under 200 characters and is explicitly supported in the article by the cited Deadline source, which discusses the "first Australian actress" claim sufficiently for WP:DYKDEFINITE. The image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at thumbnail size. QPQ provided. Original hook and image approved. Umais🗣 10:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

"Although"

One of the following sentences works, and the other one doesn't:

• Although we went out, it was raining.

• Although it was raining, we went out.

Reversing the halves of the sentence makes no difference - the wrong one is still wrong, and the right one is still right.

• It was raining, although we went out.

• We went out, although it was raining.

The "although" can only go with the part that we knew was going to happen anyway. If we move the "although" into the part of the sentence where someone makes a decision, it won't make sense. For example, By the age of twelve, after growing taller than her teachers, she had concluded that she was unlikely to pursue ballet professionally, although she continued dancing until she entered acting school means that she was powerless to decide how long to keep dancing, but before the age of 12 she made a conscious decision to grow taller than her teachers.

In this case, moving the "although" to the right place - with "she had concluded" - would have been very clumsy. That's why I just changed the sentence instead. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

O-kay... Seasider53 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)