# Talk:Try Some, Buy Some

This review is transcluded from Talk:Try Some, Buy Some/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: JG66 (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:  Yes
6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR) & (PD)

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article: 

I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best,  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@JG66:  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi JG66! I hope you are watching this page and have not forgotten about this article. As a gentle reminder, I'm putting the article on hold. I hope you don't mind. All the best!  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah sorry Seabuckthorn, I thought you'd be watching the article also, but I should have replied here anyway. I've made a few changes there. It's a tough one: I'm thinking some further cuts might be necessary in the main text, and/or I should completely rewrite the lead from scratch … Any thoughts on progress so far would be very welcome! Best, JG66 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. I've done a bit more work on the lead without resorting to the more drastic steps mentioned above. I really think that's all I can do (that is, unless I start deleting points from the main text). I appreciate your patience through all this – what do you think of the lead as it is now? JG66 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!  It's okay, no need to be sorry. You're right. I should watch articles also. Apologies.  The lead looks perfect now. Thanks!  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Seabuckthorn. Great news … (and a fair amount of relief!). It's good to get another one up there. Take care, JG66 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)