Talk:Jessica Forrest

Jessica Forrest is currently a Media and drama good article nominee. Nominated by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) at 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Note: I pledge that I will review another three articles when this gets reviewed :) Short description: British actress and author (born 1990)

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 B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. United Kingdom United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: #1day1woman (2025) This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2025. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes. Women in Green: 2025 This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Green project in 2025. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes. Television Low‑importance Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jessica Forrest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 15:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaniloDaysOfOurLives, I saw you have pledged to do another review so I'll grab this one!

Before I start, can you do a sweep through the article to edit for tone? I've read over Talk:Ashling O'Shea/GA1 and I think the same issues of being "more often conversational than encyclopedic" persist. Ping me when you're done and I'll start the review proper. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | [[Special:Con

tributions/Rollinginhisgrave|contributions]]) 15:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Rollinginhisgrave:, I have removed some bits and pieces and I think it is better now. Thank you so much for doing this review, it means so much! :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for the initial sweep. Starting now:

Prose and content

• Forrest attributed her Hollyoaks experience to helping her learn about the industry and making her feel more comfortable on set. This can be removed from the lead.
• but did not like the course as she found it too academic and realised that she would rather perform.[1][2][3] Forrest had wanted to act but felt that she had no proper experience. the order of this is a bit messy. So she went into this course, which was an academic study of drama and screen, because she didn't think she had enough experience to act? I think this should go upfront.

Other

• Broad/not too detailed: I think we are in the latter category. 133 words on how she was cast meets Template:Overly's words may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a particular audience Everything in the paragraph after and thus believed that it was "great"... should be trimmed drastically or cut. Generally, if something is likely to be a promotional interview, which almost all of this material is, don't give facts too much weight when they are saying how great the thing being promoted is. I can see this persists throughout the article, so rather than me going through and picking them all up, why don't you respond here if you disagree with me or run through ahead of time.

Suggestions

• with the three characters being new university students WP:PLUSING

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaniloDaysOfOurLives, pinging you in case you didn't see this or have otherwise forgotten. Are you on board with the feedback above, or would you prefer we get a second opinion to see whether such changes are necessary? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Rollinginhisgrave, I am so sorry for the delay. I addressed most of the comments but just was looking at what else to trim - I began trimming and will do a bit more later today/tomorrow and keep you updated. I will not trim everything as there are several things that I believe are important but I will explain them in my reply. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: Hey, I have trimmed it heavily, which was hard. I tried to remove stuff that may seem unimportant/her praising the productions she was in. The stuff I kept in are things that I believe are key details on her experiences in her career and roles and thus I believe should stay, although if there are certain sentences etc that you have issues with please let me know DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, taking another sweep through.

• Forrest had wanted to act but felt that she had no proper experience. Wanted to go directly into an acting career? This can be stated plainly.
  • Sorry, I am not sure what you mean?
• reappearing in the main soap as regular characters I believe "appearing" would be more appropriate here, as this is the first appearance in the show proper.
  • Done DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It isn't apparent why it's important to give the exact location of where the audition took place.
  • I have removed it.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• but she later moved to Liverpool where it filmed? Or is this just closer?
  • Clarified DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "and was happy to be cast in the soap" this is redundant.
• but she ended up finding it the "least intimidating place" that she had worked in I think this stuff can be moved up with the "Forrest was grateful that she had filmed Hollyoaks: Freshers before the main show as it allowed her to understand her role and working on set" content, and cut down.
  • Trimmed DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Forrest believed that she had low confidence... this is repeating the previous sentence.
  • Trimmed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "revealed" is a weasel word, the sentence is also a bit vague what that means.
  • Removed DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Forrest felt good about leaving the soap as she had had an "amazing" experience there... This kind of stuff can be trimmed, and is the kind of promotional stuff I was mentioning.
  • Trimmed DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Forrest's departure had been finalised in June 2013 Can you tell me what this means?
  • I have removed it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Forrest's departure had not been announced beforehand. and Forrest's departure had been finalised in June 2013, but she kept it a secret so that viewers could be surprised. are repeating the same information, and are a bit WP:POSA.
  • Trimmed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Forrest had a "circus-themed" leaving party." How does this comment meet WP:PROPORTION?
  • Removed DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "As Leanne was primarily a comedic character" I would move this up, so the reader knows a bit about what the character is before we get to its exit.
  • I am hesitant to move it up as the sentence is talking about how she felt that she had been given a range in terms of her departure, so if it moved up I would still need to mention at the end otherwise it would not make sense and thus it would be repeating.

I do feel I am highlighting the same stuff. Maybe you can comment on these points individually with anything you think I'm erring in before we continue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 07:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DaniloDaysOfOurLives, hope you're well. To get this review moving, would you be able to pick out a point above that you think should stay and I think should go, and we get a second opinion? Perhaps from one or two editors who have previously reviewed your work if you'd prefer? Up to you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave:, I am so sorry but I am currently going through a big health crisis, could I please respond in a couple of days? I am sorry for my lateness - I fixed about 2/3 of the issues but I need to cut some more. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Take care of yourself, this will be here when you get back. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Rollinginhisgrave:, Thank you so much for being so kind and patient. I hope you are doing well! I am still not good but I wanted to crack on with this and I have responded and addressed all your points I believe. Before my break from this, I also trimmed down the rest of the article, so I think (and hope) that there will be less to remove/fix for the rest of the review. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave: Are you okay? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danilo. Truly sorry for the delay, not sure if you received my email. I'll have a go at wrapping this up.

• Leanne was involved in several wedding storylines... This reads as trivial, I would remove it.
• "Forrest was scared as..." I would have a go at combining this with the later description of "Looking back I realise how nervous I was" in your own words.
• although she kept her departure a secret to surprise viewers remove this. It's implied by "unannounced"
• I don't feel comfortable putting in wikivoice her promo-interviews upon leaving Hollyoaks. How do you feel?
• which she believed changed her as an actress this is vague, I'm not sure what it means specifically. If you can't clarify, I don't think it's worth keeping.
• "Forrest's agent called her about the role..." This sentence reads as far too trivial to me.
• "Forrest had realised that she enjoyed..." The quote here is a bit much, and putting it in wikivoice for what is Forrest promoing it is a bit much. I would cut this section in half; it's just an ad for the program.
• "In 2010, Forrest told OK! that she had a boyfriend who designed t-shirts" I would remove this. It's hard for me to understand this as afforded appropriate weight.
• "Jack Stott from Lancashire Telegraph called Forrest "one of East Lancashire's most coveted actors"..." It's difficult for me to take this seriously, when the piece is a puff-piece ad.
• "has seen her develop not just as an actress, but as a woman" Not sure how this pertains to public image, except as far as this writer is a member of the public (as are all writers?)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other

The above is basically the whole review. I'm happy with this for stability. Once the above is handled, I'll be happy with neutrality/level of detail. Courtesy of FlickrBot, images are fine, although I may be finicky and say when you have pictures of a man and a woman, you don't need to say Alice (right). I completed the spotcheck as I went, particularly around looking at if the sources established the material was accorded appropriate weight, and I was satisfied with there not being CLOP/OR. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DaniloDaysOfOurLives, how are you going with the above? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]