|
|
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 | 2965 |
| Messages | 21987 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Comments about reviews |  |
| Date: | Aug 18, 2002 |
| From: | MSW | |
Andy, first of all what I look for from a kit review is something other than
a simple "word for word" repeat of what's in the box. This may be helpful
but typically if I know the name of a kit is Panzer 38(t) then I expect a
Panzer 38(t) to be in the box.
What I do look for is an insight from the reviewer into the accuracy, the
kit quality, the ease of build and the general value "bang for the buck".
Maybe one star for being successful in each of these areas would qualify a
kit for 4 out of 5 stars. Where the last star might come from I'm not sure
:)
I have never given any movie, book or film I have reviewed on the net or in
print or to friends a perfect score. I tend to go out of 10 on the
Mike-O-Meter :)
I don't know if I like reviews from people who have yet to build a kit
(though I see many of them). To me it is like a book, movie or CD review
that is done before reading , watching or listening to the complete piece.
There are exceptions to this rule I'm sure, but I think if someone took the
time to produce something and I am going to review it I must give it my full
attention! This goes against my new found attitude of there only being so
"many minutes in a lifetime so I am know picking and choosing my books,
movies etc. a little more carefully (something I owe to Carl Sagan quote on
reading).Of course I would not review a book that I have only read the first
chapter and if someone asked me I would qualify my opinion by telling them
that I have only read the first chapter.
Sorry for rambling but after reading hundreds of books, thousands of comic
books and thousands of movies (okay maybe only a few thousand movies),
including thousands of reviews I think I can at least give an opinion on
what I feel constitutes a good review.
MSW (I give my Email a 6.5 outta ten on the Mike-O-Meter)
And by the way I have never given any movie, CD comic book etc a perfect 10
:)
"Andy Herbert" wrote in message
news:3D5EDA9A.BB94C654@rit.edu...
> Hi there
>
> I have a general comment about reviews and the star ratings that we
> give. Of course this is prompted by the response to my review of the DML
> Panther D, but the recent furor over the Academy Honey, and so many
> other kits brings this to mind.
>
> Exactly what is a five star, or four star, or two star kit? I'm sure it
> differs for us all. In my mind, a 5 star kit would be perfect. Accurate,
> well engineered, well molded, clear instructions, perfect decals and so
> on. That would be 5/5 in my book. I don't know of many kits like that.
> Perhaps the Tiger Early or Afrika by Tamiya come close. But the turrets
> aren't asymmetrical enough, and I'm sure there are other nits to pick.
> When I review a kit I look at as many aspects of the kit as I can, and
> comment on them. Most of the time, I have no useful comments about
> accuracy. For example, the Panther D kit could be off in size. I
> wouldn't know. When I review a kit I try to make that clear. I care
> about accuracy, which is why the new Academy Honey is a disappointment.
> It looks great in the box, but the interior is wrong for a Honey. I bet
> the M3A1 kit coming soon would get a higher rating from me, because
> that's the interior you get with the Honey. The kit is better than the
> Tamiya M3, but not deserving of 5 stars in my book because of this flaw
> in the accuracy. The engineering isn't great either, because the running
> gear assemblies stick into the interior, and mess up the fitting of the
> interior. Now the Panther D is a nice looking kit. But as I say in my in
> box review, the new sprues have lots of ejector pin marks in visible
> spots. So again, not a perfect kit. And in another NG Bob Lessels and
> others had some comments about the kit that were illuminating.
>
> I guess I'm wondering if there is a good way for us to review kits, and
> have some uniformity in grading. It probably isn't possible in some
> sense, because we all have different preferences, and for some accuracy
> at all costs is a motto whereas others look for ease of assembly first.
> I like the fact that ANYONE can review a kit (and have it published on
> this site!!), and have their opinions known. I suppose some statement of
> how we "grade" kits would help readers. I think the labelling of reviews
> as Construction, In the Box, or Rant helps that way.
>
> Anyone else have some thoughts?
>
> Andy
> |
| |
|
|
 | Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 17, 2002 |
| . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Saul Garcia - Aug 17, 2002 |
| . . . Re: Comments about reviews - MSW - Aug 18, 2002 |
| . . . . . . Haha I can see I'm oot of review practice :) - MSW - Aug 18, 2002 |
| . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Ken Hartlen - Aug 18, 2002 |
| . . . Re: Comments about reviews. - Christophe Jacquemont - Aug 18, 2002 |
| . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews. - Andy Herbert - Aug 18, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews. - Ken Hartlen - Aug 18, 2002 |
| . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 19, 2002 |
| . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 19, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 20, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Christophe Jacquemont - Aug 20, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 20, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 21, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: banned in Canada. - Christophe Jacquemont - Aug 21, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: banned in Canada. - Andy Herbert - Aug 21, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Steve Frost - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Paul Roberts - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Warrink - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Tim Streeter - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 27, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Paul Roberts - Aug 27, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 27, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Did you try? - Peter Ong - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Likely not related to anything that you said (did) - Mati Raudsepp - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Graeme - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Graeme - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Tim Streeter - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Graeme - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Tim Streeter - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Graeme - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 24, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Tim Streeter - Aug 24, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Graeme - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Steve Frost - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Christophe Jacquemont - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Kurt Laughlin - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Graeme - Aug 23, 2002 |
| . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Jerry Gustafson - Aug 19, 2002 |
| . . . . . . Re: Comments about reviews - Andy Herbert - Aug 19, 2002 |
| . . . It should be noted... - Peter Ong - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . Re: It should be noted... - Tim Streeter - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: It should be noted... - Andy Herbert - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: It should be noted... - Saul Garcia - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: It should be noted... - Andy Herbert - Aug 22, 2002 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: It should be noted... - Peter Ong - Aug 22, 2002 |
|
|
