Ray S Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Hello all, having just got my latest copy of SAMI (May 2016), I was quietly reading about the Letov S.328 by Special Hobby, when I thought 'This is familiar' - so looking back at the April 2016 copy, there it was! The whole article has been published twice. I wonder if Carmel J Attard got paid twice for it too! It is still a good magazine,and I look forward to getting more in the future. Cheers, Ray 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learstang Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I have an article on the KP 1/72nd scale La-5FN that's set for the July issue (I believe). Hopefully they'll print it three or four times (I'll only need to be paid once)! Regards, Jason 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesP Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I stopped reading SAMI after the last game of musical editor's chairs. Recently picked up SAM only to find a whole page, the one I was interested in, was pixelated. Print magazines really need to sharpen their game if they want to provide a viable alternative/ addition to what's available online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Ray S - you are correct - but slightly wrong! I dug out my April and May issues and couldn't find the duplicate article - it took me ages to work out that the Carmel J Attard Letov S.328 article is actually in the May (Vol 22 Issue 5) and June (Vol 22 Issue 6) issues. You probably bought them in April/May - but they are labelled May/June. The words are the same - but the layout and photos are slightly different - I wonder if Mr Attard submitted it twice - with different photos ?? Stilll sloppy editing though...... Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Young Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 The same thing happened last year too with a Tarangus Saab Safir review in the March 2015 issue being repeated identically in the June 2015 issue. A tad frustrating when I'm paying to read the same thing twice!. Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 I do wonder how the market can sustain several magazines that are all practically identical, with the same news, reviews and subjects for build articles. I'm not sure how many Shackleton build articles I have seen recently, and unsurprisingly they all say much the same thing. The articles about such things as camouflage schemes etc are slowly being pushed out, which is a great shame, while 'how to' pieces do not get much of a look in either. Aircraft profiles have all but disappeared as well, so there is little in these magazines now that cannot already be found online. All the printed publications seem to be now are generally 'Joe Bloggs built this Messerschmitt with a few add-ons' pieces and not much else. I have not purchased one for quite some time. There is much more that they could do, and you only have to look at some of the queries that are raised in other sections of BM to see that modellers want to know much more than whether Eduard's latest Spitfire builds as well as the last one. But I suspect that sending kits out to people to build is probably cheaper than paying for some good, informative articles about the subjects we like to build. Shame. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 One must remember that magazines can only print what is submitted to them. If someone has a good idea for an article or series of articles, then please contact your favourite editor and they'd be happy to discuss it with you. You won't get rich beyond belief in this game, but then you won't get rich beyond belief publishing to the internet either..... If you need any tips on how to write good, informative historic articles, just ask our own Tony O'Toole, right here at BM. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 It seems that there is little interest from the magazines in anything other than build articles, however, as I do not believe that people are not looking to write other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Some magazines have, historically, always slanted towards printing more purely modeling articles than historical/research articles, however, you cannot cover them all with the same cloth. I'd suggest that anyone who has an idea for an historical article to contact the editors of all the relevant magazines. What's the worst they can do to you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyTiger66 Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 I buy printed magazines pretty regularly.SAMI, SAM, Airfix and so on. I feel it is an age thing, I am happy with a printed magazine I can open and read - but as a child of the 60's I guess I'm dated .. One thing that does annoy and irk me regularly, is the lack of true 'editorial' overview - i.e. simple proof reading. In my past life I was a university researcher and lecturer and had to read, and mark, thousands (over the years) of student exams and papers. Marks were always lost for poor spelling (given that for most of my career, students had word processing programs with spell-checkers). Duplicated paragraphs, sentences and simple extremely poor English also lost marks.There is an abundance of this in the magazines I read. I often feel like emailing the editor but think: "I'm becoming Victor Meldrew'". So, I don't do it. But hang on, if I'm annoyed by what I read, have paid quite a lot of money for (in AUD) and the flow is disturbed, I guess it's ok to 'mark it up' with the editorial staff?I'll admit that I am dyslexic, no longer have the assistance/device/software I had at work to aid me with syntax, spelling and so on. Thus, online, I often make mistakes - but, as outlined above in other posts, I'm not being paid for it. I set my own standards here and revise again and again until I feel it is right.I also request those that are reading my threads to point out my mistakes, as I do here In magazines originating in countries that have English as the first language, often printed by British publishing houses, am I alone in requesting that we please have written articles that are clear, proof read and flow nicely?Off of my box Best regardsTony 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learstang Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) Well as a 'Joe Bloggs' who has just recently joined the ranks of those who submit build articles to magazines, I don't have quite the jaundiced view some here apparently have regarding modelling magazines. I suppose I'm being a bit narcisstic (and mercenary), but I'm just glad to have my articles published. Perhaps when I'm more of an established author, I can afford the luxury of picking and choosing magazines with perfect grammar and syntax, and which have been proofread by the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, but sadly I am not in that enviable position at the present, being just a poor, starving author. Best Regards, Jason Edited June 6, 2016 by Learstang 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Young Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I think that most readers would accept some errors in syntax and grammar, you can find those in any magazines. What the issue here is more about the duplicate publishing of whole articles. To pick up on another point made, I think it would be great if there were some conversion or scratch build articles included. I learned a lot from some of the excellent articles in 1970s/80s issues of Scale Models, Airfix Magazine and SAM where there was less reliance on after market, and a bit more on traditional model making skills. Ah - nostalgia!! Andy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 That shows how model making has changed. To use an oft-quoted phrase, 'the past is another country; they do things differently there', and modelling is no different. Modelling books from the 1970s talk of balsa wood, talcum powder, Green Stuff and rub n'buff. If you wanted to convert your Mk.I to a Mk.II there were no resin parts available, you would be lucky if you could get alternative decals and you would have to vacform your own canopy. Of course, according to an Airfix Annual article on converting the Westland Scout to a Wasp, the tailwheel from a Hudson was an exact match for a Wasp wheel, so if you bought four Hudsons you had your wheels. And a lot of Hudsons. These days, converting your Mk.I to a Mk.II is simply a case of selecting from the myriad of aftermarket alternatives, five minutes with a razor saw and Bob's your uncle. And there is little need to scratch build; the choice of available subjects has increased year on year. But it does take away some of the fundamentals of model building, and I guess the magazines reflect that. But regarding errors in syntax and grammar: no excuses. These are professionally produced publications of long standing published by respected companies in their field. Proof reading is a basic requirement. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learstang Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) I agree that proofreading seems at times to be a bit of a lost art, not just with magazines, but with books. I've read some otherwise good military books where the amount of typos became distracting, and actually detracted from the read. Unfortunately, books and articles are the products of us all-to-imperfect humans, and I'm willing to put up with a certain number of errors, as long as they don't become too egregious or common. That doesn't mean things couldn't be better, however. Personally, I'm rather a stickler when it comes to proofreading; even on my posts on this and various sites, I'll correct replies which I posted years ago if I find an obvious typographical or grammatical error in re-reading them. Regards, Jason Edited to change 'amount of errors' to 'number of errors'. Edited June 13, 2016 by Learstang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray S Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 Ray S - you are correct - but slightly wrong! I dug out my April and May issues and couldn't find the duplicate article - it took me ages to work out that the Carmel J Attard Letov S.328 article is actually in the May (Vol 22 Issue 5) and June (Vol 22 Issue 6) issues. You probably bought them in April/May - but they are labelled May/June. The words are the same - but the layout and photos are slightly different - I wonder if Mr Attard submitted it twice - with different photos ?? Stilll sloppy editing though...... Ken Hello all, having just got my latest copy of SAMI (May 2016), I was quietly reading about the Letov S.328 by Special Hobby, when I thought 'This is familiar' - so looking back at the April 2016 copy, there it was! The whole article has been published twice. I wonder if Carmel J Attard got paid twice for it too! It is still a good magazine,and I look forward to getting more in the future. Cheers, Ray This just goes to show why I am not an editor! Way back in the old days I did write up a few magazine articles so I can speak as a contributor, but I know that my writing style/ability is not really up to much, and I cringe at what I had written back then. All in all I think the editors do do a good job, despite the odd hiccup - and let's be truthful, who does not have them? Cheers, Ray 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latinbear Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I agree that proofreading seems at times to be a bit of a lost art, not just with magazines, but with books. I've read some otherwise good military books where the amount of typos became distracting, and actually detracted from the read. Unfortunately, books and articles are the products of us all-to-imperfect humans, and I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of errors, as long as they don't become too egregious or common. That doesn't mean things couldn't be better, however. Personally, I'm rather a stickler when it comes to proofreading; even on my posts on this and various sites, I'll correct replies which I posted years ago if I find an obvious typographical or grammatical error in re-reading them. Regards, Jason Can't help but feel there's a little bit of irony here. A stickler when it comes to proof reading and yet prepared to put up with a certain amount of errors? How about prepared to put up with a certain number of errors? Print journalists and even those on the BBC who should know better make this mistake all the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learstang Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Thank you so much for correcting me, Latinbear! I do hope there are no grammatical problems with this post. Perhaps you can proofread my next book, if only that I may learn from you how to write properly? The irony here is indeed intended. Best Regards, Jason 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latinbear Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Thank you so much for correcting me, Latinbear! I do hope there are no grammatical problems with this post. Perhaps you can proofread my next book, if only that I may learn from you how to write properly? The irony here is indeed intended. Best Regards, Jason Always happy to help! . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaddad Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I stopped buying all modelling magazines about 10 years ago mainly because of the overall decrease in writing standards (you can only ignore so many "cockpit combings"), due, in my opinion, to the general lowering of expectations and demands of an ever deteriorating education system. The lack of proof reading seemed to me to be inexcusable until I realised that, perhaps, the editors themselves were incapable of improving the work of their writers even if they did bother to read the material. This lowering of standards doesn't just apply to modelling magazines, you can find evidence of it every time you read a newspaper, an onscreen tv programme guide, BBC or MSN online content,anywhere the written word appears. There were other reasons, for instance reviews where the reviewer would parrot how to apply washes etc. and build a diorama to display his latest creation whilst applying aftermarket decals but would omit to inform the reader if there were marking options and if so what they were and how the kit decals performed. I realise it is inevitable that attempts to refute what I have said will probably come thick and fast and with varying degrees of rage and indignation but I have to point out the futility of such actions where I am concerned, read any modelling, wargaming, or IPMS magazine from the sixties or seventies, or any other magazine for that matter and you will see what I mean. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 you can only ignore so many "cockpit combings" So, you gave them the brush off? My two pet peeves from writers in print and online - propellors and hangers..... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaddad Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 So, you gave them the brush off? Good Grief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Good Grief! Well, my initial thought was something about hairyplanes, so I think you got off lightly...... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaddad Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 you've stopped taking your meds, haven't you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 No, but I think my other personality has... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 So, you gave them the brush off? My two pet peeves from writers in print and online - propellors and hangers..... Likewise : I always have to check those two - so easy to get it wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.ba34a9f6ddce411193946dbdcc7b5fe8.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now