Good reviews/bad kits
Michael Benolkin
of commercial magazines tend to be overly positive.
On the other hand, magazines that called them as they see them have ceased
to exist. Why? The manufacturers that get bad reviews in commercial
publications do not get those manufacturers advertising dollars. That was
one of the factors why MMP went under. The truth hurt. If a magazine cannot
sell ad space, it has to make up revenue with increased newsstand and
subscription prices. Increase prices and the readership drops. The end comes
quickly. Even the non-commercial reviewers are cautious about blasting a
really awful kit, 'cause manufacturers and/or distributors tend to not
provide review samples after a few bad reviews.
Independent reviews, such as those that appear on our website and others
like ours will be more accurate than the commercial sector. On the other
hand, one could also learn to 'read between the lines'. If a reviewer in the
magazines says that this kit is truly outstanding, he probably means that of
all the kits he has seen, this is another one. However, he says that the kit
one that should be added to your shelf, he probably means left on the hobby
shop shelf.
Any insights to what they say/what they mean?
--
V/R,
Michael Benolkin
tac...@tacair-press.com
TacAir Publications
http://tacair-press.com/tacair.shtml
IPMS/Albuquerque Scale Modelers
http://tacair-press.com/asm.shtml
Military Aviation Research
http://tacair-press.com/research.shtml
stukage...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6o6nt4$cdo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Hey Y'all:
>
>Lately I have really gotten chafed because of people who provide product
>reviews to magazines and seem to be more interested in looking good than
>telling the truth. I have pasted below a copy of a letter that I wrote to
the
>IPMS Journal about this. The letter will be posted in the October Journal,
>but for those of you who are interested, IPMS members or not, tell me what
>you REALLY think about this subject. Letter follows:
>
>I am writing this to my fellow modelers who provide product reviews to both
>the Journal and/or to commercial publications. Lately I have seen a rash of
>reviews come out, mainly from commercial publications, whose authors seem
to
>have a real problem with "telling it like it is". There has been a lot of
>heartburn, both by me and many of my friends and acquaintances, with kit
>reviewers who give glowing reviews of products that have major problems.
As
>modelers, many of us throughout the modeling community rely on accurate
>reviews to justify the purchase of a kit or product. I don’t care how
good
>the experts think the economy is doing, my money must still go as far as
>possible. When I read a review that says the product is acceptable, I
expect
>that product to be acceptable. In the past, people at the higher
levels
>of IPMS have asked me not to trash a manufacturer when doing a kit review
for
>publication, which is fine. However, when asked to review a recently
>released kit, I had to notify IPMS that, after I had worked on the kit for
>about two weeks, and finding over 20 major flaws in engineering, fit, and
>accuracy, I simply could not provide the review in the language desired. I
>did not nitpick the kit to death, it was just basic items that killed it.
>IPMS does not provide the kit(s) to me, therefore it’s my money that is
being
>spent. I will also tell you that I contacted the manufacturer about the
kit,
>and spoke to a nice young lady to whom I detailed (very politely, mind you)
>the problems with the kit. Personally, I don’t believe that the call will
>ever change anything about the specific kit. The problem is that, when
>reading in a commercial modeling magazine, their review of the same kit, I
>was both shocked and dismayed by their review and the reviewer. Absolutely
>none of the problems were addressed, which leads me to believe that the
>reviewer was blind, under orders from the editors of the magazine, or since
>he/she possibly was being paid for the review, just wanted the cash.
Either
>way, the integrity of the reviewer and the magazine is now dubious at best.
>I asked about 25 individuals who had bought the kit both before and after
>reading the review of said kit what their feelings were, and they
unanimously
>agreed that both the kit was heinous and the review was a one-page
falsehood.
> Many of them were very angry at the lack of integrity displayed in the
>review. Why am I writing this? I have no personal ax to grind; however, I
>believe that integrity should be first and foremost in the writing of a kit
>review, as many people are going to commit their hard-earned cash based on
>what you as a reviewer say about a product. Do we have a requirement to
>treat manufacturers with kid gloves? Perhaps to a certain degree; however,
>we are all customers who purchase the manufacturers’ products. Therefore,
>the manufacturer has an obligation to provide a quality product. And if
the
>provided product is not a quality product, then by all means, provide
>feedback to both the modeler and the manufacturer! If you can’t write the
>truth, as a kit reviewer it might be better to just say nothing at all.
Happy
>Modeling!
>
>Now that you've read how I feel: a) When was the last time you saw a review
>of a bad product in FSM? b) Have you ever read a review of a kit, went out
>and spent your cash on it, and it wasn't like the review said, i.e. worse?
>Now, having read this, if you think that I'm onto something or that I'm
full
>of crap, let me know.
>
>
>
>
>Kevin Cummins
>IPMS 35536
>
>"See you in Valhalla!" Last words transmitted from the cockpit of
>Oberleutnant Heinrich Erlher's Me262A-1/a, 6./JG 5, 1944
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
stukage...@my-dejanews.com
Tom Rea
>Lately I have really gotten chafed because of people who provide
>product reviews to magazines and seem to be more interested in looking
>good than telling the truth.
I agree. The only concern I have is that guys would write a bad reveiw
based on bias or dislike of the subject or company.
One thing is to get someone familiar with a subject or product to write
the review. Is the person writing the review familiar or
comfortable working with resin and vac ?? Does he know the difference
between say a P-40 D25 and D30 well enough to pick a manufacturer up for
an error ?
A funny thing, when the Tamiya Beau came out all the reviews had one
thing in common, fair to poor cockpit detail. Then they diverged. One
said it was a really nice and well detailed "for the price" whereas
another said is was poorly detailed and Tamiya should have done more.
The thing is both were correct. The reviewer most take everything into
consideration, must put place cost vs detail, must weigh injection vs
resin moldin etc. A good review will tell it as it is and a good editor
should be able to tell if a review is balanced or not.
I think that personal webpages are agreat source for unbias reveiws as
the person writing them has nothing to gain, or loose, by writing an
honest review.
Tom
http://www2.magmacom.com/~trea/tommodel.htm
Azzz1588
writes:
>Now that you've read how I feel: a) When was the last time you saw a review
>of a bad product in FSM? b) Have you ever read a review of a kit, went out
>and spent your cash on it, and it wasn't like the review said, i.e. worse?
Hello, and yes.... I bought the
HiPM Vindicator.
Even though the reviewer was "nice"
about the kit (nice in your terms)
Yes the kit is a bear, but my attitude is that
he did it, so can I
Not really PO'd at the review, actually I liked the review,
and will some day sit down, and spend the time
to actually finish the kit......
Allan
http://members.aol.com/azzz1588/azpage1.html
"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
AAMRESIN
However, I question if any kit review is going to be truly objective. If the
reviewer bought the kit, he is naturally going to tend to be picky, especially
at the price of some A/C, Armor or ship kits these days (Cars, while not
nearly as expensive, are getting there!) Conversely, if he is a frequent
recipient of kits for reviews, free gratis(a great many widely published
reviewers are!), then he is naturally going to be careful about even seeming to
"bash" his sources. I am sure you would behave in a like manner, wouldn't you?
I think you would.
If any magazine permits reviewers to "bash" (even honestly) kit after kit,
sooner or later, advertisers will desert that publication. Without being in
the publishing business, I am still certain this is so. Often times, a kit
review, good-bad-otherwise-or-indifferent, will have little or no effect on the
sales of a model kit (The movie review syndrome--the fewer *'s the more at the
box office). However, the people who enter into advertising contracts, and who
write the checks for ad space may think otherwise.
I also would question the reviewer's qualifications. No kit reviewer,
regardless of the subject being reviewed, can be a complete expert on that
plane, car, ship, tank, etc. Now, granted, anyone reviewing a model kit should
be able to note parts that don't fit, seemingly strange engineering--yadda,
yadda, yadda. But comment on the accuracy of a kit?? Perhaps in general
terms, I mean there are thousands of us who know the correct "look", be it a
P-51, The USS Missouri, or a 71 Duster. But: is that prop spinner the right
shape, did a 71 Duster come with optional twin scoops, does the Missouri still
have some of the 20/40mm gun tubs? If one expects detail-perfect reviews, I
would question whether or not these will occur.
Personally, while a car modeler, I would rather see a kit review that tells
me the good points of a kit, and the dings as well, but not phrased in "Jerry
Springer", confrontational style. That does not serve any of us, IMHO. If a
kit is truly bad, a piece of crap, why review it? Why should I waste my money
on a magazine that spends its pages on reviews that discourage me (or anyone
else) from buying kits?
Lastly, While I revel in well-done car kits, I still get off correcting
the sins I see in a particular car. I don't know if these problems are the
result of poor rendering of the subject, or perhaps a compromise due to the
limitations that do exist in plastic model design (( mean--are the body panels
really 1 1/2" thick?). I do know a big part of the satisfaction of building a
model is correcting the "dings" as I find them. Seldom in the past 35 or so
years, have I been just a "kit assembler". Just my rambling opinion, FWIW.
(putting on my nomex underwear!)
Art Anderson
Art Murray
> Now that you've read how I feel: a) When was the last time you saw a review
> of a bad product in FSM?
The review of the Encore 1/72 Tu-2 by David Veres in the May 1998 FSM saved me
money, time and heartache. I was about to buy the kit before I read David's
review. It is a straightforward review of a kit with numerous flaws. However,
rather than ripping out his hair and covering himself in ashes and sackcloth,
David does an excellent job in identifying the problem areas so that one can
still build the kit.
I found the same help in an old FSM review of the Hobbycraft 1/48 T-33A which I
used to build the Hobbycraft F-94B (essentially the same kit). The review
identified the problem areas very well, although there were one or two additional
tricks that could have been spotted. As a result of the review, I built a very
nice a/c and had fun doing it.
I use reviewers' solutions to fit and accuracy problems as though they were just
another step in the kit instructions. I get upset at the reviewer and the
magazine when the review does not identify these problems.
The recent discomfort with the FSM reviews is that the most glaring whitewash
reviews in FSM have been the Revell He-111, Bf 110 and Me410B. Unfortunately,
these were long awaited and popular kits whose reality fell far short of the
glowing reviews in FSM. A few flaws of the He-111 were identified by FSM, but
the article did not identify the major fit problems. It is interesting to
compare the reviews of the He-111 in FSM with the He-111 construction article by
Mitch Thompson in SAMI. The SAMI article correctly identifies the "pig of a gap"
between the nose canopy and the fuselage; and the "poor fit" of the engine
nacelles and wings. I am not a conspiracy buff (here it comes), *but* Revell
seems to consistently get the Pollyanna treatment in FSM.
I read reviews with a grain of salt. The full blown construction and conversion
articles in all the modeling mags bring out the best observations.
All in all, though, I prefer having the reviews to not having them.
Art
Mike
coloured by how they build kits. I'm not being negative when saying this
but you sound to me like someone who is a nitpicker for detail and
accuracy whereas I'm more concerned with the engineering of the kit and
and major flaws in how it reperesents the real thing(a F-16 with a
propeller wouldn't get by me I tell ya!). I think most reviews that I've
read on kits that I've built have usually been accurate in these regards
and each individual reviewer usually adds some little tidbit on any
small inaccuracies in the kit. If I want to add or correct any small
details to a kit I usually research it myself or even better use RMS and
the net to help me out. Having said all this I urge you to send your
letter and keep reminding manufacturers(in a polite way of course) about
any flaws or inaccuracies with their products. Judging by the excellent
kits that are being released these days(even with their flaws) they have
been listening to such criticism and should be kept on their toes or the
quality might drop off. As to the reviews I also think that maybe many
of the reviewers are working on a deadline and may not have the time to
do an indepth critique on a kit. I don't buy the idea that negative
reviews piss off the manufacturers enough to hurt the publication and
therefore are frowned upon as I have seen some pretty scathing reviews
on kits at times.
My 1.34 cents Cdn. worth, Mike.
QUIKBRD
RMS and always get many personal reviews of the good, bad & the ugly!!!!
And I would like to thank all who have replied in the past. Most all reviews
have been right on !!!
Ray Lloyd IPMS#36878
FREMONT HORNETS
"If the enemy is in range, so are you"
Val Kraut
>Hey Y'all:
>Lately I have really gotten chafed because of people who provide product
>reviews to magazines and seem to be more interested in looking good than
>telling the truth.
Kevin,
This seems to have always been a problem - magazines depend on
advertisers, and the guys who do the reviews in some cases have a
relationship with the company that gets them the free kit for review.
I remember a case some years ago when one manufacturer was re issuing
kits packaged and advertised with the younger modeler in mind. Many of
these were from molds that had long outlived their usefullness and
were not reworked. The general opinion was they had a goal of soaking
up money from inexperience kids who would probably mess up the kit
anyway. Many of the established modelers believed they were turning
off the next generation to the hobby. This was stated in one
publication - who in turn got in big trouble with future ads.
On a related item I knew several article authors who complained that
the editors of some publications would change the article to say a
different paint, glue or whatever was used to help their advertisers.
You'd think they could just stick to reviews of better kits that
deserve praise and leave the rest with the free publicity.
` Let the buyer beware.
Val Kraut
AHorv43767
else. That isn't their purpose. They can, with effort, be fair or balanced,
but not objective.
There was an interesting article in the NY Times a few weeks ago about the
decline of criticism in such areas as film, books, and theater. Its thesis was
that paradoxically, even as the available choices in these areas have exploded,
the traditional influential critic has become nearly extinct.
By "traditional influential critic" the Times meant that certain reviewers,
because of their reputations for insightful reviewing and the prominence of the
places they reviewed (NY Times, New Yorker, LA Times, etc.) were almost as
well-known among serious audiences as the authors and filmmakers themselves,
and their reviews were taken by consumers as a real guide in whether to spend
the time and money to see a film or play or read a book. These reviewers used
their positions actively to "make" or "break" artists whose work they came to
like or dislike, and several who are household names today owe much of their
initial success to these influential reviewers. (Many others who toil in
obscurity, or worse, have these reviewers to thank as well.) Whether the best
artists were always successful as a result of such championing is dubious but
at least there was some gatekeeping function. As a consumer, you didn't always
agree with these reviewers; but because you knew the reviewer's tastes, and
because the reviewer didn't pussyfoot around what he or she really thought, you
could make a well considered judgment about whether you were going to enjoy the
thing being reviewed.
Today, the Times observed, what passes for reviewing is the Siskel-and-Ebert
type crap where incoherent, superficial opinions are delivered by those with no
particular knowledge of the subject matter, and usually with a good dose of
toadying to the publisher or studio. The reason is partly because there are
now so many media outlets for criticism that good reviewers are spread thinner
than good pitchers in major league baseball, and partly because audiences no
longer consider the opinions of critics more educated than themselves as a
useful guide to what they want to watch or read. The Internet has helped by
democratizing criticism to the point where the only credential required to get
your opinion out to the world is an AOL membership. So both professional
reviewers and audiences see the role of the critic very differently now than in
the past.
Now consider reviewing of kits in our hobby. Certainly it never had the
refined development of criticism that existed in film, theater, or books. But
it seems to be following the general trend toward bland, inoffensive,
not-particularly-insightful reviews of products by those who are not real
specialists in the thing being reviewed. Most regular reviewers do not appear
to see themselves as the hobby-industry equivalent of an arbiter of quality for
their audience. They do not take it upon themselves to say, "This kit should
fail," or "You MUST buy this kit." When challenged to do this, they generally
retreat into the language of objectivity which is just as much a chimera as it
is irrelevant to the purpose of traditional reviewing.
Granted, some injustices are avoided in this way. There are not that many
really widely read critical outlets in the hobby, and it's easy to imagine some
meritorious up-and-coming hobby company being squashed by a negative review in
a major magazine of one of it's early, sub-par attempts. On the other hand,
real opinionated criticism could do some good as well. Consider an outfit like
Toko, a new company that by all accounts is making just jim-dandy kits.
Somebody should be out there shouting, "Hey, buy a Toko, this could be the next
Hasegawa," from (figuratively speaking) the highest rooftop. Instead, what we
get is the model magazines saying they make very good kits -- which is exactly
what they say about a lot of companies that do NOT make very good kits. When
there are no really critical reviews, the gradations in positiveness between
good and bad products become so difficult to detect that only those who have
learned the special code words that magazines use to sugar-coat major kit flaws
can distinguish a favorable review from an unfavorable one. That is not going
to be much help in promoting the really good new manufacturers.
And then of course there is the problem of the level of informedness of the
reviewer, especially about the subject being modeled. Half the time, when I
read a kit review, I am dead sure that the writer has never built a model of
that type before. Worse, it is clear that the reviewer has not researched the
accuracy of the kit as if he were building a model for competition, or even for
his own collection. Instead, the hobby reviewer's conception of "research" is
to get the wingspan and length out of a Bill Gunston book, tell me how many
millimetres off the model is, and then (if we're lucky!) offer some silly
opinion about whether the fuselage looks too fat. No wonder I have to post a
query to RMS or go looking on the web for someone who has built half a dozen
kits of that subject in order to get an opinion worth reading.
Anyway, none of this going to change. We have to face the fact that it is
simply too much to ask that kit reviewers deliver a strong opinion or that they
educate themselves in the subject matter, at least to the extent that members
of their audience would if they were building the kit. Just thank goodness we
now have RMS and a bookmark list full of reliable web sites to fulfill this
function.
August
DanaS64562
do comparative reviews of kits. So one time they ran a comparative review of 2
manufacturers' kits of the same tank, pointing out in detail the good points
and bad points of each kit. Then they backed off from that policy as if it were
radioactive, no doubt because one of the two kit mfrs. involved, Tamiya, was a
heavy advertiser for them, nearly always bought the rear outside cover for
full-page advertising. WYes, we need on-line mags. and other places to post
honest reviews (and also detailed how-to-build-this-thing articles such as that
British hobby magazine at least used to run). But as soon as pages of this sort
start proliferating we need something else, a central bibliography pages
containing links pointing to all these sites. Otherwise nobody will ever find
them.
DanaS64562
Jonathan O'Connor
edit your review.
When I was still on Compuserve, Walt Fink had submitted and review to FSM.
He made sure to post the REAL review on Compuserve.
There was a GREAT DEAL of difference between what he submitted to FSM and what
FSM printed. Every sentence pointing out a flaw was most likely too long removed.
You will forgive me for forgetting the name of the review in question. It
probably does not matter since they are all doctored for easier readability (by
the manufacturer/advertiser).
In the same manner a few years ago during a Senatorial race I submitted an
editorial to the local paper. They alwasy call to confirm the person exists - no
doubt to not have any "fake" journalism. They told me they may edit it. They did
edit it.
If you anything about wrting in English the FIRST sentence of a paragraph is
called the TOPIC sentence. The Topic sentence introduces (guess what?) THE TOPIC
of the paragraph. All other paragraphs in my editorial must have been based on
the OPENING TOPIC. You'll never guess what these people left out in order to put
their own spin on it so that is served their purposes of sensationalism versus a
bonafide complaint in the way a Senate race was being run.
So the paper actually called me to confirm the use of putting my name to THEIR
PEE-PEE KA-KA.
So what is new under the sun?
JO'C
Kevin Carroll
*is* a much visited topic, but only because of the validitity of the
gripes.
I would like to return for a second to Kevin's original comments
regarding the IPMS Journal product reviews. I too generally find them
less than forthcoming in criticisms. And with that in mind, I have to
question the IPMS policy of accepting products "gratis" from
manufacturers for review. Whether or not the the free products influence
the reviewer to be more lenient in his comments, certainly the
appearance is immediately there. I think it hinders objective reporting.
I'd be curious to hear other comments.
Kevin (The IPMS #7931 Kevin)
Val Kraut
>Kit reviews can never be objective, of course. Neither can reviews of anything
>else. That isn't their purpose. They can, with effort, be fair or balanced,
>but not objective.
August,
I believe that the kit reviews share something in common with other
types of critical review - but differ in certain key aspects.
The movie critic in many cases has some form of advanced degree in
literature, or some other related field. Thus the opinion expressed
often follows from the degree to which the movie was "artistic", did
it break new ground, was it an intellectual experience? On the other
hand the average movie goer just wants to find escape and be
entertained for 2 hours. Thus many panned movies go on to become
majors finalcial successes. The reviewer and the movie goer represent
two distinct points of view here.
The kit reviews have at least two aspects - is it an accurate
repesentation of the actual item? and how well/easilly does it go
together. The first is based on the degree of research the reviewer
has done on the particular subject. This is similar to the movie
situation where accuracy to a theme is stressed. The second depends on
modelling skill, which we would assume all reviewers possess. Not
finding errors in the kit may be forgiveable, but giving a good review
to a kit that is a filer and fillers nightmare can't be excused.
Val Kraut
DanaS64562
things like lousy fit or bad decals, and report on the problems he experienced
building it. Also, at least for reasonably experienced modelers a few photos
of the built-up kit tell their own story, so even if the review is full crap we
can get plenty of valuable info without even bothering to read the review.
DanaS64562
DMorris517
As one of the reviewers of kits for the journal, the guidelines are simple.
First, review the kit fairly and to the best of your ability. Second, review
it OOB, not too much extra stuff (unless that's part of what you're given to
review, i.e. detail sets.). The journal reviewers are NOT experts in that
plane, armor etc. so there may be some fine points omitted. This is primarily
because no "Experten" are willing to review a kit., photograph it and write
~`500 words and return it all in 60 days.
I believe the journal reviews are fair but don't expect to se things like this
kits "sucks", "blows" etc because if for no oither reason, it's bad manners.
If a reviewer says there was a fit problem, there was probably a significant
one.
I do suggest you volunteer to write and review, I have two kits reveiwed in
the current journal (1/72 Me262 and Eduard set, Geometric Predator) and more
coming. It's fun
Happy Modeling
Dave M
IPMS #33653
SVanaken
web options, both free and subscription that offer kit reviews on a wide range
of modelling tastes. While I will naturally blow my own horn
(http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2118) as regards to a super
review site, these are mostly enthusiast sites and not beholden to the
influence or pressure of money, either by advertisers or by editors.
While few of the reviewers will consider themselves experts, you will find a
wide range of experiences. I feel that by having built over 1000 models in my
life, I have some experience in the subject, as do a number of those kind
enough to submit reviews.
It is interesting that when I get multiple reviews of the same kit, there will
not only be the same areas of concern, but a few that are different between
builders. Kit reviews are like going to the doctor. Not all will give the exact
same diagnosis, but from the similarities, the truth will emerge.
I encourage you to utilize what is available outside the printed page.
Cheers,
__________________________________________________________________________
----Scott Van Aken IPMS Canada 5729----
----The Aviation Nut Webzine----
----http://members.aol.com/svanaken----
----Fly by Nite Productions----
Francis
renditions that could not even be used as scrap plastic. If we take for instance
the Avenger kits out on the market today, most have a major flaw in the tail
section that is next to impossible to correct. Only the recent renditions have
this section done correctly. When I reviewed the existing kits in the Warbird
Profile series, I pointed out these errors, I mentioned that they basically don't
stack up to today's standards and that they would be difficult to correct.
However, I did this in a diplomatic way and made sure the positive points with
the kits were mentioned. The old 72nd Airfix rendition was probably the most
outdated kit reviewed in the book, but having seen what some people have done in
the past, prior to the Hasegawa kit release, I made sure this was mentioned. And
yes, a very nice Avenger can be built from this kit. Airfix even wrote back to me
saying thank you for an honest review.
So I think that people who review kits, books or whatever should always take into
consideration both sides of the medal. Today's technology offers highly detailed
kits which we could have never dreamed of seeing only a few years ago. People
have and will always make mistakes, but there is always some positive points that
could me mentioned. As long as reviewers remember this, good objective opinions
will benefit everyone.
Francis
http://www3.sympatico.ca/aries.pub/Index1.htm
Ray S. Katzaman
Boy, I could not agree with you more, even if I knew you personnally.
Some time back I made some "harsh" remarks like the kit "IS NO GOOD" and
was lambasted by some artfully. I still hold my position that if a kit
is bad, it is bad. I think if the manufacturers do nothing to correct
bad models, we as consumers should return them to where we bought them.
That way the retailer would convey this to the distributor, etc. up to
the manufacturer. But then again, this may wishfull thinking.
Cheers,
Ray S. Katzaman
IPMS 35112
Austin, Texas
> Now that you've read how I feel: a) When was the last time you saw a review
> of a bad product in FSM? b) Have you ever read a review of a kit, went out
> and spent your cash on it, and it wasn't like the review said, i.e. worse?
Ray S. Katzaman
>
> There are diplomatic ways to review subjects, even if these are awful
> renditions that could not even be used as scrap plastic.
Francis,
How much diplomacy (political correctness) do we have to tolerate. I
agree that we should not use words as "this kit aspirates (sucks)" or
"it's a piece of excrement (crap)", but tell the truth. If the kit is
not up to the reviewers par, say so. Don't play up to the magazine or
manufacturer. If there are major problems in fit, say so, if there
major engineering discrepancies, say so. Don't write in code - be
specific in stating facts. That is all I want as a consumer.
F. X. Kranick, Jr.
I'm all for honest reviews but I'd offer one observation; if there
are problems with a kit, the reviewer should spell out exactly where the
problems exist. To make references to previous efforts by the same
company is not enough. To say parts fit is lacking is not enough. To
give me descriptions of detail that's soft is not enough.
I think criticism, particularly constructive (no pun intended!)
criticism is difficult to write. Your gut instinct is to say "this
thing stinks!" but that is of absolutely no use to your reader. Let
them know what you've found in the box and during construction. Tell
them how things go together. If the decals are thick, that's something
to consider letting your reader know. If they explode when submerged in
water, they'd NEED to know that. Don't use generalities and try to
clear your mind of prejudices: each model kit is different from the
rest.
Accurate Miniatures is acknowledged as an industry leader as far as
ease of building, research and accuracy. If they release a dog of a kit
(perish the thought!) I'd much rather a review to spell out problem
areas instead of writing the entire kit off as bad using generalities.
Sure, editing come into play but there's more to a review than word
count. If your comments are consistent, editing for space will not have
that adverse and effect on the overall review. Besides, I know of no
newsletter editor who'd complain the article was too long as he's happy
he has an article at all.
Flashback to Media class in high school, back in... well, a while
back... The teacher tells us "Write about things you know." No biggie.
--
Frank
IPMS/USA 20352
"I'm a real boy!"
- Pinocchio
*****************************
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
CAD Drafter/CAFM Administrator
University of Scranton
Scranton, PA USA
kran...@uofs.edu
(717) 941-6267 - voice
(717) 941-6220 - facsimile
Frank Tauss
>
> Francis wrote:
> >
> > There are diplomatic ways to review subjects, even if these are awful
> > renditions that could not even be used as scrap plastic.
>
> Francis,
> How much diplomacy (political correctness) do we have to tolerate. I
> agree that we should not use words as "this kit aspirates (sucks)" or
> "it's a piece of excrement (crap)", but tell the truth. If the kit is
> not up to the reviewers par, say so. Don't play up to the magazine or
> manufacturer. If there are major problems in fit, say so, if there
> major engineering discrepancies, say so. Don't write in code - be
> specific in stating facts. That is all I want as a consumer.
>
> Ray S. Katzaman
> IPMS 35112
> Austin, Texas
At the risk of drawing fire...
I like the little capsule reviews in SAMI. I think they are among the
most honest reviews I've read but thier guys don't really get nasty,
they just state the facts as they see it. Perhaps it's just typical
British understatement but I like it.
--
Frank Tauss
bknjlell
> Ray S. Katzaman wrote:
If the kit is
> > not up to the reviewers par, say so. Don't play up to the magazine or
> > manufacturer. If there are major problems in fit, say so, if there
> > major engineering discrepancies, say so. Don't write in code - be
> > specific in stating facts. That is all I want as a consumer.
> >
CODE specific fact
This is the best F-16C in 1:74 scale made. The wings and fuselage
belong
in another dimension.
The decals are outstanding. ------------------ They stand out 1/16 of an
inch.
Fills a gap in anyone's collection. --------------- Closet door stop.
Some filling and sanding was required------------- 2.5 pounds of red bondo
and 21 sheets
of 220 grade sandpaper later it looked
ok.
Some modeling skill is required------------------------- A degree in Zen
meditation with a minor
in brain surgery wouldn't help.
Some parts had ejector pin marks which ------------ most were shaved off
and used to
needed attention fill the sink holes
the rivet detail was a bit heavy------------------------------ especially
on the clear canopy
be sure to clean the parts to remove the mold ------ much of it has already
soaked
release through the box like a cheap
bag
of potato chips.
Mark Schynert
takes up less space) to make a general comment like "this kit sucks"
or "wings lack fit with fuselage". To illustrate, I recently wrote a
blow-by-blow build of the Mach 2 Do 26 for my club newsletter. The kit
had a lot of problems; my article ran to something like six pages of
text. Commercial mags can't afford this much verbiage for one kit, but
to detail the problems of this one very problematic kit took a lot of
words (I could have made it maybe 20% shorter, but that's still long.)
The kit had many shortcomings, but it was buildable, and the only
presently-available alternative of this type. Doing it justice with 1/5
the word-count might have required me to say things like "the fit of
the wings to the fuselage revealed misalignment, but I found it possible
to correct this with care and repeated dry-fittings." Or "as with most
limited-run injection kits, expect to spend time correcting surface
irregularities." Both statements are accurate, both are broad glosses,
and both understate the problems.
Another problem is one of reviewer attitude. Reviewers who say "this
kit sucks" might be justified if they are looking at a Merlin He 280
or something equally miserable, but perhaps they are just so pissed that
this $30 kit of something they really want to build has (probably
correctable) flaws that they get angry and vent. On the other hand,
while I have no evidence that this has happened, it would be naive to
think that <<all>> commercial mags <<always>> are brutally honest about
the quality of kits supplied by big advertisers.
I think the best any of us can do is keep in mind that restaurant and
movie reviews aren't particularly trustworthy either--the best case is
to find a reviewer you trust, and to solicit opinions on rms--they are
free, after all, and sometimes worth what they cost!
Mark Schynert
Azzz1588
writes:
> I'm all for honest reviews but I'd offer one observation; if there
>are problems with a kit, the reviewer should spell out exactly where the
>problems exist.
Just one problem here.
Suppose there are problems with the reviewer ?????
(I mean he just has not the proper skills...)
Seriously, I think anyone with the time, and
PATIENCE (!!!) can get almost any kit together well.
(Including Dan, and the Williams B 10 !!!!!!)