|
|
Forums - News / General |
For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby. |
| Topics | 2989 |
| Messages | 22332 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Product review confusion |  |
| Date: | Jun 18, 2006 |
| From: | neville | |
I think Tim’s post did a good job of encapsulating what most reviewers try to do.
With reviews I also think its important that we remember what the review is aiming to do.
A lot of in the box reviews are written around the time a kit is released and aim to provider readers with an independent view of what is in the kit when the kit is still new. These reviewers are good at describing what the kit has to offer e.g. what special features the kit has, decal options, quality of castings, test fitting of key parts, comparison to readily available photos.
Most reviewers will try to provide guidance on how you can address those shortcomings which they note when comparing the kit to their references (eg adding zimmerit or repositioning a rifle rack).
The more detailed reviews are often the build reviews which are typically written some time later. These reviews can be very good at helping someone walk through building the kit and often reflect the author’s modelling style. Some of these reviews will include numerous details on correcting a kit using aftermarket items, others will focus on out of the box, and take technical accuracy on good faith. From experience detailed build reviews are very time consuming to write and I suspect that’s why there are fewer of the web than some readers want.
One area I’ve seen a lot of variance in reviews is how the reviewer approaches research (from gut feel thru to meticulous examination of photos etc) and a lot of this reflects the individual’s own taste. Compounding this is the fact that the was considerable variance between supposedly identical tanks and that reference books themselves vary.
Cheers
Neville |
| |
|
|
|
