|
|
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 | 2987 |
| Messages | 22307 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Poll - What makes a good review |  |
| Date: | Mar 19, 2007 |
| From: | John Martin | |
Saul
I enjoy reviews at any level as someone has taken the time to take a critical eye to a product. Most of my purchases are based on the material presented in these reviews.
As a builder of kits, a partial or full build is preferred over an in-the-box review.
Sequentially, here's what I think should evolve through kit reviews.
1. The in-the-box review should always be viewed as preliminary, i.e., no field tests, but presentation, accuracy of outline (as best determined by measurement to prototype whether on the sprue or taped together), depth of detail, and supplemental information, including clear, readable instructions. Reference materials should always be included. For the consumer (reader) it is critical that I know where I can find information and what the standard of judgement was in the review.
The catch at this point is the reviewer going to follow-up with a full build (field test) review. Often this is the last the reader hears of the kit. It would be nice if the initial reviewer followed through with a full-build in a timely manner. However, I also live in the real world and understand the constraints of time placed on all of us.
2. Full-build reviews should focus on gestalt - overall could you pick it out of a police line-up with a photo of the prototype in your hand. At the same time, the full-build should be the place for nit-picking with the understanding that there is a compromise in engineering in scale vs. the prototype, and that aftermarket may or may not follow through depending on the popularity of the kit. Recommendations for detailing may be included but the overall focus should be on the quality of parts, the assembly, and the end-product.
Full-build reviews should include photos of the kit - from all sides. It is very disappointing to read reviews that only show one side of the kit - I refer to MMiR, which repeatedly provides redundant photos of a kit from the same side.
Critical reviews should include how well the kit goes together, relationship to instructions, should some parts be left off until later construction phases, etc.
Overall, your reviews cover all these areas remarkably well considering the complexity of some kits.
Personally, I am presently working on the Trumpeter Morser kit. While all reviews have been favorable and I really enjoyed the contrasting Trumpeter/DML review on PMMS there has not been a full-build yet. Yes there is a brand new article on the Military Modeller website, but even that is rather cursory. As a result, I have been very disappointed with some of the joint fits, sink marks, ejector-pin marks, flash, and sloppy engineering. In contrast the DML may be childishly simple but the parts fit much better I think. Just my opinion, but with all the fan-fare I would have thought a full-build would have come out sooner.
This hobby can be incredibly intimidating to the average modeller. (Think of someone logging in for the first time). Overly critical reviews may frustrate many. Nit-picking should be limited to blogs and other avenues.
My thoughts.
John |
| |
|
|
 | Poll - What makes a good review - for anyone - Saul Garcia - Mar 18, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - Paul Roberts - Mar 18, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - Tim Streeter - Mar 18, 2007 |
| . . . . . . Above Should Be Response to Other Review Question - Tim Streeter - Mar 18, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - Brian Bocchino - Mar 18, 2007 |
| . . . . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - Jerry Plettenberg - Mar 19, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - David Offiler - Mar 19, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - John Martin - Mar 19, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - Good Reviews are Important - Edward Hall - Mar 19, 2007 |
| . . . . . . Re: Poll - Good Reviews are Important - Saul Garcia - Mar 19, 2007 |
| . . . PMMS is the Best - John Anderson - Mar 19, 2007 |
| . . . . . . PMMS is the Best - Eric Scurlock - Mar 21, 2007 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: PMMS is the Best - John Anderson - Mar 22, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - PMMS The Consumers Reports for tank models - Skip - Mar 19, 2007 |
| . . . . . . PMMS The Consumers Reports for tank models... - Andrew Herbert - Mar 20, 2007 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: PMMS The Consumers Reports for tank models... - Skip - Mar 20, 2007 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: PMMS The Consumers Reports for tank models... - Mike - Mar 21, 2007 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Once lost... - Andrew Herbert - Mar 21, 2007 |
| . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - for anyone - Paul A. Owen - Mar 21, 2007 |
| . . . . . . Re: Poll - What makes a good review - for anyone - Edward Hall - Mar 22, 2007 |
|
|
