Magazine Kit Reviews

[andym]

I suspect not Andy!

In my experience a lot of things don't actually become apparent until you actually start 'bolting' something together and comparing with photos (and not drawings - unless they have a *really* good provenance)... Which, I guess, takes us back to the OPs comments.

Iain

Which makes me wonder just how many reviewers actually do look at pics of real thing? From reading your reviews it's clear that you do, however it's clear others don't. they just assemble the kit and say how it fitted wondefully and had excellent surface detail etc, any outline and detail errors are ignored.

Regards,

Andy

[Jon Bryon]

I know where Andy M is coming from as I read that editorial as well

Yes, but I think it's fair to say that since that editorial our (or at least my) fears have not been realised. There have been plenty of critical reviews since (Great Wall WWII German twin boom aircraft that I've forgotten the name of springs to mind...)

When there is ignorance (e.g. the A-10 in the latest issue) it looks like reviewer ignorance. There was still honesty regarding certain points of the build (e.g. number of turbine blades in the engines).

I would say MAI and SAM are far more guilty of skipping over obvious shape errors. But their models do look nicer :-)

[Dave Batt]

I have to say the the big problem with certain magazine reviews is not the quality of the articles but rather the glossing over of often serious errors and omissions in kits and that's an editorial decision and not one taken by individual reviewers, who can only follow the guidelines they are given.

Andy

Can't really say I've noted that. Individual A may take a look at a kit and see what they consider a serious matter (dare I say "fatal flaw"), while B may actually build the kit and thoroughly enjoy themselves, and say so in print. A can then read B's review and disagree with it. Within our world the magazines will give guidelines to the physical presentation of material (file formats, photos sizes and the like) but the editor let's the writer get on with it. What's the old saying; why keep a dog and bark yourself?

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

OK - heres the problem as I see it.

Let say I read a review of a model in a magazine, which I know contains serious accuracies in shape, making it an approximation of the real thing at best. Lets say I know this because I've done exhaustive resarch into the model, and actually built it too. Lets also say these errors are fairly self evident from even a glance at some relevant pics, and plenty of people agree on them.

Now lets say that the magazine review, at best, glosses over these errors, and actually goes so far to say "whats all the fuss about, , it looks like a XXX to me etc etc". The review model is well built and nicely finished, with lovely pictures too.

Lets also say, just for good measure, that an editorial also appears, bemoaning " accuracy purists" for spoiling the fun.

Now to my mind this raises some serious issues: The first being that the reviewer plainly hasn't got a clue what he's on about, but doesnt care to admit the fact. The second being that the editorship of the magazine obviously doesnt give a monkeys either, if being aware that there is "concern" ove rthe models accuracy they choose to publish the review without any counter view or editorial note to some effect as such.

It also raises a question in my mind of: If I know this model is innaccurate, but dont see it mentioned, how then do I trust reviews of others models ( of which I know not as much or very little) when they tell me much the same thing?

I realise that a lot of reviews are done my normal modellers, unpaid, and in their own time. But the main staff on magazines are surely paid professionals? Would it not be possible for editors to do a bit of due dilligence on articles? At least to check ( good grief, perhaps online!) if the models being glowingly reviewed do perhaps have errors that the reviewer may not be aware of?

Then it would be easy to insert an Editors comment - saying something to this effect.

At the moment I sometimes get the impression of a lot of reviews being presentated as fact, when in fact, it is opinion. For any magazine - whatever its content, its surely necessary to clearly indicate the difference between the two? ( the model has 215 parts, and comes with 3 marking options. FACT: It looks like an xxx to me, OPINION). Now if that means editing people's articles - then Uhm, isnt that what editors are meant to do? Maintain integrity.

Cheers

Jonners

Edited December 23, 2011 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[thx6667]

I realise that a lot of reviews are done my normal modellers, unpaid, and in their own time. But the main staff on magazines are surely paid professionals? Would it not be possible for editors to do a bit of due dilligence on articles? At least to check ( good grief, perhaps online!) if the models being glowingly reviewed do perhaps have errors that the reviewer may not be aware of?

Then it would be easy to insert an Editors comment - saying something to this effect.

At the moment I sometimes get the impression of a lot of reviews being presentated as fact, when in fact, it is opinion. For any magazine - whatever its content, its surely necessary to clearly indicate the difference between the two? ( the model has 215 parts, and comes with 3 marking options. FACT: It looks like an xxx to me, OPINION). Now if that means editing people's articles - then Uhm, isnt that what editors are meant to do? Maintain integrity.

That's the Catch 22 Jonner's, the reviews are being done by other modellers and perhaps in some instances accuracy issues which are hotly debated on forums just are not that apparent to the reviewer - in that respect its an honest assessment. Plus we then come back to the thorny old issue of forums criticising magazines for not being critical enough when some of their members would rather spend their precious time and effort moaning about the situation and how the crap reviewers/magazines than diverting it into some kind of positive change.

That said, I'm equally irked when something as important as a product review either glosses over something, or finds a fault which based on sketchy research (five minutes on Google or Wikipedia). Perhaps editors should have a responsibility to make sure that their reviewers are sufficiently skilled enough to understand the purpose of their task in hand, give them a general checklist of things to mention or at least look into - for example, keep the historical background info short (and not paragraphs of superfluous padding) and make sure the reviewer sticks (sic) to reviewing rather than meandering into what they added to the kit and their finishing techniques - and in that repsect that's where the editors should be doing their job and shaping the articles, trimming them down and keeping them (hate to use the phrase) on message. And if a writer wants to talk aftermarket or weathering, turn it into a feature article - but not a review because the two are distinctly different things.

But as you said, sometimes they are just normal modellers and perhaps their level of critical sensibility is representative of the hobby as a whole, and the critical element is just a highly vocal minority?

[Nick Millman]

It has become impossible since the internet revolution. Magazine kit reviews survive still but are arguably already obsolete.

In the old days you read the review, bought the kit and wondered why you couldn't build it like the reviewer. The only "forums" to highlight problems were letters to the editor or discussions at gatherings of modellers. Nowadays the online kit builds and critique threads appear as fast as, if not faster than, the magazine reviews and generally opinion trumps facts every time dependent upon the obscurity or popularity of the subject. And the readership is so diverse, from those who want to build a kit that "looks like a xxx" and uncritically follow the paint guide to those who worry about the panel line differences between a 3c built by Scruggs and a 4a built by Bloggs and to cross-kit eight different kits to get it right. In almost every thread discussing a kit the two polarisations will be at it hammer and tongs.

There is a very old saying "One man's meat is another man's poison." Still relevant today. Magazine reviews and the internet have not revolutionised that.

[robvulcan]

ive never really bought magazines for kits, i have for model railway stuff, but with kits i have always enjoyed the surprise of whats in the box, however since using the internet i relly on independant reviews that are on here, and then make up my own mind,.

magazines in model rail terms too do tend to often be a bit on the glowing side, for example i see faults with many of hornbys new trains sure there fantastic look right and much better than the old one, but the wheels are all standard on many and dont look like the real thing, they go to all that effort to super deatail everything and then chuck any old wheels on, what a huge oversight.

id imagine there are favours done to wright a favourable report and its always good to be positive but you should always point out flaws to push forward improvements,

[Seahawk]

Magazine kit reviews survive still but are arguably already obsolete.

That's the nub of the issue, IMHO. In the old days we eagerly awaited the monthly magazines not only as almost exclusive sources for news and reviews but also for the adverts to tell us what was available. Nowadays the inevitable leadtimes involved in producing a magazine mean that, by the time the reviews appear, the internet juries will already have sat and made their judgments. And nowadays everyone can be a reviewer, correction, do a "review": what hasn't changed, thankfully, is that it's still up to the reader to make up his/her mind which reviewers he/she respects and trusts. I buy a lot fewer magazines nowadays because I get better information more quickly from elsewhere but I will still buy a magazine on the strength of a thorough well-informed review or build by someone I respect.

Edited for spelling.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Seahawk

[Panzer Vor!!!]

tbh i trust the guys on here for reviews then magazines hats to mike, shar and the rest of the team

[Dave Fleming]

That said, I'm equally irked when something as important as a product review either glosses over something, or finds a fault which based on sketchy research (five minutes on Google or Wikipedia). Perhaps editors should have a responsibility to make sure that their reviewers are sufficiently skilled enough to understand the purpose of their task in hand, give them a general checklist of things to mention or at least look into - for example, keep the historical background info short (and not paragraphs of superfluous padding) and make sure the reviewer sticks (sic) to reviewing rather than meandering into what they added to the kit and their finishing techniques - and in that repsect that's where the editors should be doing their job and shaping the articles, trimming them down and keeping them (hate to use the phrase) on message. And if a writer wants to talk aftermarket or weathering, turn it into a feature article - but not a review because the two are distinctly different things.

Interesting point, but I suppose a lot of that depends on the publishers or editorial policy (or even 'mindset' if policy is too much!) - say for one magazine's editor, the hobby is all about the model, and in particular the finishing/painting, whereas another may be mor eof a real aviation enthusiast who also likes modelling - you'll get a different guide as to what to put in a review.

[thx6667]

Interesting point, but I suppose a lot of that depends on the publishers or editorial policy (or even 'mindset' if policy is too much!) - say for one magazine's editor, the hobby is all about the model, and in particular the finishing/painting, whereas another may be mor eof a real aviation enthusiast who also likes modelling - you'll get a different guide as to what to put in a review.

Sure, but a review is primarily there to assess a kit, not a showcase for aftermarket or finishing techniques. The latter is more suited to a feature article. I've lost count how many reviews tell me less about the kit and more about the modeller - editors should be picking up on that and editing.

Don't get me wrong, I love reading about technique, but for me it belongs in a multi-page feature article (which can double up as a review), not in a dedicated review per se where it's imperative to get as much information about the kit as possible in the space available.

[Solly]

Has anyone stopped to think what may be the cause of the lowering of standards of reviews in magazines? Could it be that in these days of the internet and instant communication that the reviewers do not have the time required to do a proper review? If they did, it would probably appear some months after a kit release, by which time most people would be saying that this is old news. Could it be that on reading many internet forums the editors have come to the conclusion the accuracy is not the prime concern of the majority of modellers?

I have written articles, not reviews, for all of the mainstream aviation modelling magazines and not once has any article been changed from what I typed.

I think everyone needs to define what they mean by review. Do they want a listing of what is in the box, perhaps with sprue shots? If so, fine and dandy, but it is hardly a review. It is a catalogue of what is in the box. Harking back to what I said previously, in these days of instant communication, we can all find this information quite easily nowadays, and do not need printed matter for this.

Do they want a review of what is in the box, with sprue shots, and a view on how well the kit parts fit? Again, fine and dandy, and a review of what the kit is supposed to do - fit together.

Do they want a review of what is in the box, how it all fits and whether it is accurate? Well, now you are talking serious review and you need someone with the necessary references and time to do it justice. Now we are back to the problem of lead time.....

There has been a blurring of the differences between reviews and articles in magazines, and I for one, do not like that trend. If it is a feature article, call it that. If it is a review, call it that. Don't try to do both at once. This could be one of the reasons for the criticism we are seeing now. Some articles are simply about how well the kit fits, what aftermarket was used to enhance (or otherwise) it, and what finishing techniques were used. It is not about accuracy.

Some articles go further, and do all of the above, but with how the kit can be made more accurate. Sadly, in my opinion, we see less and less of these.

I have seen reviews in magazines which are very good. By that, I mean they detail what is in the box, how it fits, and whether it is accurate. I have seen others which simply list what is in the box. The majority of internet reviews fall into the latter category. One only has to look at the review section here for several examples.

I find it interesting that it is considered bad form to criticise models on the internet, unless the builder actually asks for it. Even then, there is very little criticism. Mostly it is "fine build", "love the weathering" etc etc. Yet it is acceptable to criticise a magazine's content, even though that content has been created by a modeller.

To answer a couple of statements made

If I know this model is innaccurate, but dont see it mentioned, how then do I trust reviews of others models ( of which I know not as much or very little) when they tell me much the same thing?

No reason to completeley distrust the magazine, but more reason not to trust the reviewer.

id imagine there are favours done to wright a favourable report and its always good to be positive

I would very much doubt that there are favours done. The magazine may simply get less new kits to review.

the thorny old issue of forums criticising magazines for not being critical enough when some of their members would rather spend their precious time and effort moaning about the situation and how the crap reviewers/magazines than diverting it into some kind of positive change.

I couldn't agree more. People seem to forget that the majority of articles and reviews are done by modellers in their spare time. But in these days of instant gratification and communication, there is a perception that information will be on the internet somewhere, and thus free.

It is very easy to complain about magazine content, but the readers have the solution in their own hands. Funny how we don't see criticism of forum content.

Would it not be possible for editors to do a bit of due dilligence on articles?

I think many editors do. Let's compare the printed word with the electronic media. Once an article is printed, it will be bought. It is physically there for the owner to see. And it will stay there for all to see until the owner decides to recycle it perhaps. Electronic media is at the mercy of the server. It can be deleted at the touch of a keystroke. Gone for everyone who didn't choose to right click. I can upload pictures of my models to a website such as this - some may like them, some may not, some may want to use them as reference, some may not - but all I have to do is delete them from the hosting server and they are gone. Once something has gone into print it is harder to delete, thus more research is done before committing to print.

[Seahawk]

Sure, but a review is primarily there to assess a kit, not a showcase for aftermarket or finishing techniques. The latter is more suited to a feature article. I've lost count how many reviews tell me less about the kit and more about the modeller - editors should be picking up on that and editing.

Don't get me wrong, I love reading about technique, but for me it belongs in a multi-page feature article (which can double up as a review), not in a dedicated review per se where it's imperative to get as much information about the kit as possible in the space available.

Amen! Testify, brother!

[Giorgio N]

If you are a paying customer you have the right to challenge the quality of the material you are receiving.

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of times this right is often forgotten. Fortunately we still have the right of voting with our wallet !!!

[Paul J]

I have done reviews for a number of years for SAMI and about to do a couple more after a long break. I have always tried to do the right thing and describe the quality of the kit and how it goes together etc. which I feel are the most important things in new kits. I mention accuracy issues as best I can with the knowledge I have on the subject I'm working on but draw the line there and don't get out calculators, slide rules etc to check dimensions. I leave that to the individuals where poss. But there is a danger that we can all be the same finicky modeller as some around the globe who slags off a kit because the prop tip is too blunt or the panel line is a micron out of place and not get anything done! This may not suit people here but hey, its only a hobby and its entirely up to modellers to improve on the kit of their choice. I don't go all out to 'knock' a kit manufacturer purposely either. I set out to give readers an outline of the kit and its good points and its bad points. Thats it. I know i've explained iy a bit 'bitty' but hope its understood.

EDIT:

I also have to add that there is a time frame for the kit to be built, written about and photographed before submitting to the title in order to keep the subject 'fresh'. So one can't waste time researching like going through a myriad of plans (not always accurate or agree with each other), photos and literature other wise by the time this work is done, the latest DH/BAe/NAA 'Whizziprop' is out of fashion!

Edited December 23, 2011 by Paul J

[Mike]

This thread pops up from time to time and always plays out the same way, usually with the same proponents riding their own particular hobbyhorses. It can be summed up succinctly by the phrase "you can't please all of the people all of the time".

[Paul J]

I think thats what I was trying to end up with Mike! Cheers.

[viscount806x]

I would tend to agree with Iain that MIS is pretty good at "proper" reviews (occasionally spread over multiple issues, as they are so detailed). Airfix Model World is good as well. Just take a look at the Gnat build in the current issue. Although, I am not too keen on the varied subject matter in AMW and may not re-subscribe as a result.

I do accept that there are 'in depth' build articles in most issues but these tend to be more of an 'event' than a review, most seemingly built by superhuman modellers who attain standards which could never be achieved by most of us luddites practising on a tray in front of the telly. Very nice though these type of 'articles' are, there is still a place for those nice little concise reviews like in the ancient Scalemodels/SAM/Airfix mag, that we can refer back to just to pick up what we need to watch out for when building whatever model kit, once again (at the risk of repeating myself) by someone who has done a quick normal afternoon type of build of the model. And, taking the place of the countless previews and pretty sprue pictures and (dare I say it) pushing aside some of those model show photos with the models built by blokes with toolbenches equipped like a major research lab. Now then, wheres my balsa wood, sandpaper and cellulose dope? All this is said with tongue in cheek to provoke a bit of discussion guys, incidentally.

Happy Christmas, mines a 1/48th Swift (fat chance).

Nige

[viscount806x]

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of times this right is often forgotten. Fortunately we still have the right of voting with our wallet !!!

And, I have done just that!

[thx6667]

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of times this right is often forgotten. Fortunately we still have the right of voting with our wallet !!!

It's not forgotten, but the point is that it's not some separate sub-breed that review kits, it's us, it's even people on this and other forums, other modellers who have got off their duffs and put pen to paper.

Strikes me that the biggest critics want the editors to somehow source the right reviewers to please them without ever taking that step forward themselves.

[AnonymousAA72]

So many issues - so little time!! Just a few points that may or may not have been made here...A review: To be fair it should be conducted by someone who knows a bit at least about the subject. I lose interest if a reviewer has little or no knowledge of the subject. If they've not even bothered to make some fundamental enquiries about the subject - to plug any knowledge gaps - then really! What is the point?

A review would not necessarily have to feature the kit being built, in fact probably better if not. What's in the box and how it measures up is fine and dandy with me. The reviewer having some knowledge of the subject could comment on any accuracy issues - it's then up to the punter to decide on buying. Any fit issues? Well, there are so many variables - but the most obvious being the skill level of the person building the thing!

How kits build are better covered in "Build-Articles" with a bit more time and maybe passion involved. I've NEVER ever built a kit I had been forced to, and certainly in the few dozen articles in various magazines NEVER built a model of a subject I had no interest in, nor hard copy reference materials of that subject. Maybe thats one of the problems of today's modeller. No time nor inclination to build up libraries of reference material, to actually learn something about the subject. We want answers before the questions been asked. Google is your friend? Well sometimes - maybe!

Any type of article is only as good as the builder/writer. Long gone are the days when I could knock up a model in a few days - yet alone a few weeks. Good luck to those that can - but cast your mind back. How many reviewers would add the caveat - "sorry a bit rushed at the end to meet deadlines". With the quality of photography expected in todays magazines review articles to the accepted standard of 1990 simply wouldn't be good enough. Ever heard the story about how one manufacturer would only send review models to a magazine if a certain reviewer was not invited to build and review? Hopefully them days are gone!

[andym]

So many issues - so little time!! Just a few points that may or may not have been made here...A review: To be fair it should be conducted by someone who knows a bit at least about the subject. I lose interest if a reviewer has little or no knowledge of the subject. If they've not even bothered to make some fundamental enquiries about the subject - to plug any knowledge gaps - then really! What is the point?

A review would not necessarily have to feature the kit being built, in fact probably better if not. What's in the box and how it measures up is fine and dandy with me. The reviewer having some knowledge of the subject could comment on any accuracy issues - it's then up to the punter to decide on buying. Any fit issues? Well, there are so many variables - but the most obvious being the skill level of the person building the thing!

How kits build are better covered in "Build-Articles" with a bit more time and maybe passion involved. I've NEVER ever built a kit I had been forced to, and certainly in the few dozen articles in various magazines NEVER built a model of a subject I had no interest in, nor hard copy reference materials of that subject. Maybe thats one of the problems of today's modeller. No time nor inclination to build up libraries of reference material, to actually learn something about the subject. We want answers before the questions been asked. Google is your friend? Well sometimes - maybe!

Any type of article is only as good as the builder/writer. Long gone are the days when I could knock up a model in a few days - yet alone a few weeks. Good luck to those that can - but cast your mind back. How many reviewers would add the caveat - "sorry a bit rushed at the end to meet deadlines". With the quality of photography expected in todays magazines review articles to the accepted standard of 1990 simply wouldn't be good enough. Ever heard the story about how one manufacturer would only send review models to a magazine if a certain reviewer was not invited to build and review? Hopefully them days are gone!

Amen to that.

Andy

[keefr22]

Would it not be possible for editors to do a bit of due dilligence on articles?

Hmmm, such as the editor of a certain aviation modelling magazine who in the latest (I believe) issue has published an article written by himself , in which his name is spelt incorrectly. Fine bit of editing that.....

And rather than the quality of reviews, it's the lack of editing (or proof reading) in magazines today leading to what little text there is in them becoming on times almost unreadable, that led to me taking the oft proffered advice of 'voting with my wallet'. Which is fine, as not buying the 3-4 magazines a month that I used to has significantly increased my budget for buying plastic instead. Then I can find out on t'internet if what I've bought actually resembles the real thing....!!

Keef

[Navy Bird]

Good discussion all around. And as usual with Britmodeller, everyone was polite and in general used correct spelling and punctuation. On this side of the pond, we would have people throwing insults back and forth after the third or fourth post!

I only subscribe to one magazine, Finescale Modeler (FSM). We only use one "L" in Modeler over here. Each review is based on a build, although not all of them show the in-progress shots. Each review is also accompanied by a sidebar that contains "What we like" and "What we don't like." So there is always some criticism. Their 1:48 Su-24 review lambasted the kit in several areas, but also had praise for other areas. The mag isn't perfect, but at least the reviews don't read like advertisements.

That said, FSM missed all of the accuracy problems in the 1:72 Trumpeter Lightning that I'm struggling to correct right now!

Cheers,

Bill

[heloman1]

If I may throw my two peneth in here. By the time I get any mag down here at the Bottom of Africa it is already two months old, by the time the kit arrives it is already out of stock in Europe, by the time I build the kit I've forgotten where the review was. However Britmodeler came to the rescue yesterday with an inbox review of the new Sea Vixen kit and for what it's worth I think it said everything I needed to make my mind up, that I need one.

On the other hand we all build differently, so what might seem a good/bad point to the reviewer may well not be so for the modeller/purchaser/builder.

I do agree that some of the

photo's contained within article do take up too much space within the pages of the mag and may well have a detrimental effect on the novice builder, who may well say well I can't make them like that, where's my games console!

Colin on the Africa Station