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 No reason to completeley distrust the magazine, but more reason not to trust the reviewer. I would very much doubt that there are favours done. The magazine may simply get less new kits to review. 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. 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.

Perhaps we should all step back a little here. It could be that magazines and internet modelling are aimed at different audiences. I am sure that there are many beginners who buy magazines, but possibly not as many as read internet fora. Just look at the number of new members on this site who state that they are just starting. Are the magazines aimed at the more discerning audience? I really don’t know. It has been said elsewhere that there seems to be a generation of disenfranchised modellers. What has caused this? Is it the magazines, the internet or the modellers themselves who are becoming more knowledgeable/skilled/experienced and therefore find less to interest them in any of the mediums? I have been modelling since 1963, and reading internet modelling articles and fora since close to when they started. But I have become tired of internet modelling, and it could be that the fans (and the editors and publishers) of the printed stuff are the same. Let’s not forget, that criticism can and should be a two way street. Why is it acceptable to criticise magazine content here but they can’t criticise internet content? I can chose to ignore an editorial and move on to the body of the magazine, in exactly the same way that many posters say don’t read posts which don’t interest you. We have seen that said often enough. I agree that too small photographs in a magazine are of little use, as are reviews which do not comment on accuracy or buildability. However, we can find reviews of exactly the same kind no more than a stone's throw from here, and they get such compliments as "great review". Don’t think me ungrateful, internet modelling has brought the hobby on in leaps and bounds, and I have made friends around the world through it, but there is a downside. I find that there is just too much dross on the web related to our hobby. Sure, one can say that the quality of modelling articles in the printed media are of mixed quality, but, in my opinion anyway, the majority are reasonably good, and that goes for the quality of the models as well. It is obviously in the interests of the publishers to present quality in order to drive sales. There is no such quality control in internet forums. It is great that the internet has given a window to all standards, but I want to be inspired by the good stuff. I have to wade through an awful lot of the other stuff on the internet before I find it. The same goes for research. Too often people simply pitch up with a question and get the information given to them straight away, sometimes the wrong information (which of course then gets to be passed on and becomes "fact"). The art of research seems to be dying. Don’t just ask on a forum, get to the root of the question and do some digging yourself. Perhaps that is similar to what Jonners was saying about the instant gratification generation. How many times have you seen the comment "I don't buy any magazines or books because everything is on the 'net for free"? Well, certainly in my area of interest, which all happened pre the internet, someone actually had to do some proper research to get such information. It could have been note taking, photography, reading or searching of archives to get the information. And of course, lots of it has gone to the 'net, but the fact that someone had to do something has been forgotten. I generally find, again, in my opinion, that most printed articles have been reasonably well researched and can provide references. I agree that there are lots of knowledgeable folks out there in discussion group land, but most appear to be of the old school and have the books and reference material to hand.

Wow, this must be a record. I have posted several times on BM in a couple of weeks. But some things get my dander up about this hobby. Correction, it gets my dander up about what they say about this hobby. Could you please, please show me a thread on this site, or any other where someone has dismissed a model as wrong? If someone has asked for constructive criticism, then they are fair game, but I doubt it has happened in public too much. What would you rather have, someone politely pointing out errors or someone gushing that a model is "wonderful" even if it patently isn't? If someone politely pointed out an error, with references to show the error, then not only has the modeller learnt something, so have you if you have read it. I am still waiting..... Please, please show me an article in a magazine from the 70s and 80s (when the internet was in it absolute infancy) when a model was dismissed in public as wrong. It's ok, I have a full set of SAM, Scale Models, Airfix magazine etc etc going back to the 60s. I am still waiting..... The same thing is said about model clubs (and quite often IPMS). I attended a model club for many years, I never heard it said to a modeller. Not once. I have attended the Nationals lots of times, I never heard it said. Not once. This seems to be an urban myth that the so called 'uber modellers' the 'rivet counters', the 'detail fanatics' the 'colour police' will always point out what is wrong. They don't. But if you ask them, most often they will offer constructive help - interestingly, because by asking, you appear to seeking guidance, and it will be freely given. I am still waiting..... I have been modelling for close on 50 years - not once has someone come up and said "that is wrong..." Or have I just been lucky? Correction, probably I am one in a million, so very, very lucky. I am still waiting..... If someone posts what they think as fact (often what they have read on the internet, interestingly often on a discussion forum) which is wrong and can be shown that it is wrong, they will have it pointed out to them that their facts may be wrong. Note what I said, their facts may be wrong, or to put it a better way, that they are not proven. Nothing wrong with research which reveals facts. Research can be likened to being a historian. Or are historians and modellers mutually exclusive? Wasn't the OP simply questioning some research, not a model? Fully agree Bill (hiya mate), but more often the conversation is about research, or the lack of it, and not about the models. I agree, that there are some exceptions, but mostly they are kept private. Still waiting by the way.........

No problem Jonathan, but you will see that I have added comment later to what I said. I don't disagree that people have the right to offer an opinion. I also alluded to your recent point about voting etc And then we get which seems to reinforce my view that the widely held solution seems to be that "someone else will do it".

OK, fair point, and perhaps I should have used my words better. But opinion is all well and good. It may change the way things are, but action is a more certain way of bringing about change. You do not like government, but are free to comment on it. If you felt really strongly, you would vote for what you thought might bring about change, or even join in and actually work for the body where you wanted change. Opinion is fine, but if the change comes about, someone has actually done something, and not just talked. If there is more content in a magazine that someone likes, it is because someone has created that content (perhaps due to the opinion), but it did not happen on its own. I am sorry, but if someone casts an opinion and then says that they cannot be 'arsed' to do anything, then they get what they deserve. Then again, some are happy to complain and wait for others to do something. You made a fine job on correcting the Trumpeter Tornado. You did something. For all the complainers about the kit who did nothing, what did they get? A Trumpeter Tornado with all the faults.

From what I can see in this thread, there are two cliques. Those who do write (or have written) for magazines, and those who don't. The ones who do, have made less noise about the content of any magazine, because they have realised that they can control the content to a small degree. Those who don't write, seem to have the biggest axe to grind. I started by simply contacting an editor, told him what I had and asking if he was interested. He was, and it was published. It was that simple. OK, it had to be of a certain standard, but I look back on my first article and can see what I could have done better. Maybe I couldn't have at the beginning, but my standard of writing, presentation and photography got better (and more articles have been published) - interestingly, in the same way that modelling improves with practice. If someone does not have the skills in either building or writing to create an article, then so be it. But you can only try, and if it is not accepted for publication, try to improve and try again. If you do not have the inclination to write, as in then it is really quite disingenious to complain about those which are published.

Apart from the internet vs printed matter debate, has anyone else noticed the extremely poor editing in the latest issue? Page 16 A review of (I think) the Two Bobs' Buckeye with pics of Two Six Models' DC-9 kit. In the "Marketplace" section, small pictures of various kit box art, with (sometimes) a few words about the kit, but no indication of who the manufacturer is. In the books section, we get more of what the publisher says about the book than the review. In the "Briefing" a comparison of decal setting solutions, with 4 brands shown, but only "ratings" for two. Hmmmm....

but the fact that they were not picked up, or no one spread the word did not make them any less errors. I think you have hit the nail on the head, as far as the point Jon, and myself to an extent, was trying to make, but maybe from a different angle. The reviewer no doubt typed the words on a PC, he took photos with a digital camera. He may not read the discussion boards, but there is a 99% chance that he does have access to on-line resources. The fact that people on here read discussion boards, does not mean that magazine editors and contributors don't. They most probably do read them, but simply don't contribute. Let's not assume that they do not have access to other resources. This is a digital world, and the magazines themselves acknowledge that. The whole point of this thread is not the inadequacies of the kit (that has been covered elsewhere), but the inadequacies of what is supposed to be a review in a magazine which is in the digital world, albeit printed on hard copy. However, on re-reading it, I am not now sure it is a review. It is part of their bigger article on the Tornado. It is presented like a review, with the usual information box etc, but it is more just a build article.

Jon, it isn't going to happen. It USED to happen, but not any more. Let's not forget that all of the mags are now working against time. New kit released - it is pored over on the internet ad infinitum whether it is good or bad. The magazine has probably got a 2 month lead in time to get anything into print. The review is old news already. Britmodeller and all of the sites are part of the cause. Someone, in a far off place gets some sprue shots, and before you know it, they are worldwide in the forums, probably within hours. I do write for a magazine, I have been published many times. I don't do reviews. I think the days of magazine reviews are over, and all of the editors need to realize that. Whether, as Dave above has said, they only publish good ones or bad, they are always a day too late. Fine, list the new kits, aftermarket or whatever, but the reviews are not what sells the magazine - or, in my opinion, what should sell a magazine. Did you buy SAMI just for the review of the Tornado? Or other reviews? I doubt it. You bought it for the "meat" of the magazine, the articles, the research, the reference. Reviews are transient, they are as good as the day they were written. And now I am back to lead in time.... You have been modelling for quite a few years, do you really need a review to tell you how good or bad a kit is? Yes you could get some pointers if it was a truthful review, but you will already know what needs doing to the kit to make it right - and you did. You did it the old way, bought the kit, built it corrected it, and put your findings for all to see. It took time, something magazines don't have these days. All magazines nowadays mostly have reviews which are pointless. They are a catalogue of what is in the kit. Take last month's SAM - trumpeted on the front cover "over 100 reviews". No, what they did was list 100 new items, they didn't review them, ergo a catalogue. I rarely, if ever, post on this forum (indeed, any forum now), but take a step back, and let's think. Write an article on how to correct the Tornado, send it to an editor, it will probably be published. Most editors are crying out for articles. Just don't call it a review. I have magazines going back to the 60's and 70's and right up to date. I read articles many times. Do I read the reviews from the old days? Nope. We have all been quick to defend Neil Robinson and what he did with MAM, and how it has changed ( a whole 'nother story), but almost to a man, everyone on this, and other forums liked the content. Never a kit review in there. Support the mags, write articles, good articles, which you, and Bill (Hi Bill!) and others are capable of on how to make the Tornado model better. You can't make the kit better, it is what it is, but you can show how to make a better model. But it's not a review. Those are the articles which people will refer to over the years. They are in print, something you can hold and read over and over again. And not at the mercy of someone's web host. Get real, Peter, it will not kill their circulation - it may stop the flow of kits for review, but not the circulation. People buy publications for what they can read, digest and hopefully use again. I remember some pretty scathing reviews back in the old days, and the circulation is still there. If people don't have an interest in "rivet counting", as you so nicely put it, or accuracy why are they reading reviews? They have an interest in the kit. If accuracy, or rivet counting are not important, why bother reading it? Sure, I could review a kit and say every part fits like a glove, no problems in assembly whatsoever. Does it look like the real thing? Well yes, but it could be better, but that's not the purpose of this review. Wouldn't you then ask the question "How could it look better"? And please don't anyone give me the hoary old chestnut of not everyone or every modeller not looking at the internet, and that enthusiasts are only a minority. I know we are a minority. If someone reads a review whether on the internet or in a magazine, they have an interest (however small) in whether the model is good, bad, right or wrong.

Serious modellers will pay for the kit if it is correct. Define serious modellers. Spell serious right , if you are serious. Yes, probably, but are they serious modellers? I seem to recall that the Airfix Spitfire XIX has got a serious bit of criticism as well. Not in the same price range, I agree, but criticism is still criticism, despite the price. Serious modellers (and others) still seem to be buying it. Despite what the internet gliterati (ie the chat rooms) say, it will still probably be at the top of Hannants best sellers list. What is the alternative - Italeri (£18) plus aftermarket costing upwards of at least £20? Hannants have quoted it at £38. Is that really too much for a 1/48 modern jet for serious modeller? Tamiya F-16, listed at £37. Is that too much? Hasegawa 1/48 Phantom FG-1, listed at £38. 20 year old kit. Is that too much? If £38 is too much, you have several choices: 1. Don't buy it 2. Buy the alternatives I suggest 3. You have no 1/48 Tornado.