FalkeEins Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 .. according to an email sent out to subscribers one Chris Meddings has been appointed editor of Scale Aircraft Modelling - I’ve ‘googled’ the name and it seems that the guy who runs ‘Inside the Armour’ is a Chris Meddings ...is this the same chap? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony C Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Hmmm, I've been considering cancelling my subscription recently, as I felt that the Gary Hatcher was tinkering with the style and lay-out and that the magazine was becoming very similar to the style that Jay Laverty oversaw! I appreciate that each editor have their own style but regretfully the current changes are not for me, so if this news is correct, I may stay for bit and see have things pan out! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Yes it's the same Chris Meddings Duncan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Yep can re-confirm. Chris is a good guy. Some people get upset with him occasionally because he does have opinions but he never resorts to name-calling and always constructs an argument. That grates on some types who just like arguing and/or just want to be right without ever being asked to back up a statement. I like Chris. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalkeEins Posted June 19, 2019 Author Share Posted June 19, 2019 ..thanks for your replies guys. I'm asking because (AFAIK) 'Inside the armour' tends to suggest that Mr Meddings isn't (dare I say it..) necessarily an aircraft modeller.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Chris is simply "a modeller". He runs Inside the Armour, and he has indeed built AFVs. He has made resin accessories and upgrades for AFVs. He made a 1/350 pre-WW1 French destroyer kit in resin and PE. He's scratchbuilt a French 1/500 pre-Dreadnought. He recently built Pitroad's 1/35 Imperial Japanese Navy Type 96 triple 26mm AA gun with Infini Model's detail set supplied through me. He ran a 7 issue Ship Modeller e-magazine. He recently won the IPMS Avon competition for 1/47 and larger aircraft class with this 1/32 Ki84 Modellers stuck within one "discipline" can sometimes show a terribly blinkered view on the modelling world and are oblivious to methods, techniques and trends etc seen in others. I think Chris will bring some fresh air to SAM 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr T Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Be interesting to see what he does. My main hope is that the standard of layout checking improves. Most issues have had wrongly captioned photos or the wrong photo and some dodgy text. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalkeEins Posted June 30, 2019 Author Share Posted June 30, 2019 On 6/19/2019 at 12:56 PM, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said: Chris is simply "a modeller". . I think Chris will bring some fresh air to SAM Thanks for the extra info... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) He's not off to a great start, judging by what I've just seen in the current August issue, which I've just downloaded... ....beginning with the 'Press Release' on the editorial page, where one of the Guideline Publications titles is, apparently, Military Modelcarft International - embarrassing or what, not just a typo on the first page of your first issue, but in a company press release to boot! Skip ahead to page 44 and the 'Full Build Review' of the Airfix Westland Sea King HAR.3/Mk.43, where the boxtop is clearly pictured, but the article sub-title and product details under the boxtop photo both say 'Seaking HAR.3 Mk42' - incorrectly all one word, and the wrong sub-type... ....the second paragraph, starting "It's first deployment" doesn't make sense as it is - probably missing the word 'was' - and also it should be "Its", not "It's"... ....the incorrect one-word spelling of 'Seaking' continues throughout the review, which is also factually incorrect - apart from the Falklands deployments and assistance to our immediate neighbours, RAF Sea Kings didn't provide SAR cover outside of the UK; whilst the Royal Navy SAR version was the HU.5, not HAR.5, and they were Grey and Red, not Yellow, as implied... ....in addition, The Netherlands never operated Sea Kings; and the Royal Norwegian Air Force is incorrectly abbreviated to RNAF instead of RNorAF... ....back in the day, part of an editor's job was not only to edit his contributors' submissions, but also to check what they were talking/writing about for accuracy - 'fact-checking', in today's modern parlance... ....other errors noted in the first half of the issue include: rogue quote marks at the ends of some of the contents descriptions... ....further occurences of "it's" instead of "its"... ....publishing convention is that figures are expressed in words for less than ten, and digits for more than, but there's no consistency whatsoever - amongst others there are instances of '4' and 'four', and 'sixty six', and even '2-day' and 'one-day' in the same sentence... ....various instances of 'is' which really should be 'was' when referring to aircraft no longer in service, such as the Sea King, and the F-14 Tomcat - in the latter's build article, it starts as 'is', then changes to 'was'... ....and throughout that article, a distinct lack of editing makes it apparent that English is not the author's first language - eg., "I clarify a little the paint and make with vertical movements and clouds way randomly"... ....in the editor's own feature article there's a lack of capitals where they are appropriate - eg., "axis" instead of "Axis" and "allied" when it should be "Allied"; it also contains a lot of semi-colons in places where they're un-necessary and don't belong, along with improperly-used ones which should actually be full colons or commas... ....plus it has a few simple typos: "my" instead of "may", "read" instead of "ready", and "his" instead of "This" - the art is to not proof-read your own copy... ....I could possibly go on - but to be honest, after the Sea King article, I gave up... Edited July 29, 2019 by andyf117 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
56134 Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) '....publishing convention is that figures are expressed in words for less than ten, and digits for more than' My own preference is to remove as many actual digits as possible from paragraphs including a lot of technical data. Thus for instance in a hypothetical sentence where '37 Spitfire Mk. IIs of 303 Squadron encountered 24 Bf 110G-4s of 7/N.JG.III escorting 8 Do 217s of KG 53 and 15 - 20 Ju 88A-4s of 9/KG. 27' I would write any numbers that were not directly applicabl;e to aircraft type or unit as complete words. Otherwise - for the same reasons of cutting down too many confusing digits in a paragraph of technical information - my own preference has been to use digits only for numbers greater than 100. I like to think publishing convention could allow some flexibilty if it is in the interests of clarity Edited July 29, 2019 by 56134 typo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 We do appreciate your comments and we believe that Chris will be a great asset to our team at Guideline Publications. I accept that there was some grammar errors and these will be resolved, certainly not all down to Chris and his team of contributors... we always appreciate your comments good or bad as long as they are constructive I am always open to receive these. Gary Hatcher is still working with Guideline Publications and launching a new magazine at Scale Model World..... along with another new magazine which we will launch at Scale Model Challenge.... If you do have any ideas or suggestions please do let me know. Tom Foxon - Sales & Marketing Director for Guideline Publications [email protected] 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhouse Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 33 minutes ago, tomf said: there was some grammar errors "there were some grammatical errors" Best wishes to the new editor, and I hope your new magazine is a success. Brian 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 Brian.... I know my English is poor. 😯 that is why I am not the editor... Thank you for your reply.... 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 In all fairness, there were a lot fewer words in the older publications which were thinner and on smaller-sized paper. (I guess A4 has been around for a while... but not as long as the hobby.) So the workload on the editor was much lighter in that respect. It might be interesting to know how much computerisation has reduced the numbers of helpers in producing a magazine whilst changing (and adding to) the responsibilities of the staff. We could then consider how much (if any) changes result from changes there has been been in the teaching of English, away from rote learning and grammatical analysis - although I suspect that finding an impartial study would be difficult. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Bryon Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 19 hours ago, andyf117 said: He's not off to a great start, judging by what I've just seen in the current August issue, which I've just downloaded... ....beginning with the 'Press Release' on the editorial page, where one of the Guideline Publications titles is, apparently, Military Modelcarft International - embarrassing or what, not just a typo on the first page of your first issue, but in a company press release to boot! .... I was struck by the same observations and they give me cause for concern over the future of the magazine. One of Gary's great strengths was he evidently knew how to write and typos clearly were typos, rather than ignorance. I'm also struck by the increase in white space and a return to some of the Jay Laverty style of editing. It's not as bad as SAMi (which verges on the unreadable quite often) and I appreciate this is the first issue, so I am optimistic things will improve. On another note, I am flabbergasted there is still a market for yet more magazines! Jon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhouse Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 1 hour ago, tomf said: Thank you for your reply.... Tom - sorry, I should have held my tongue. I'd just spent an hour correcting the 'improvements' a client had made to a script so I still had my proof reading hat on. No slight was intended... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Graham Boak said: In all fairness, there were a lot fewer words in the older publications which were thinner and on smaller-sized paper. (I guess A4 has been around for a while... but not as long as the hobby.) So the workload on the editor was much lighter in that respect. It might be interesting to know how much computerisation has reduced the numbers of helpers in producing a magazine whilst changing (and adding to) the responsibilities of the staff. We could then consider how much (if any) changes result from changes there has been been in the teaching of English, away from rote learning and grammatical analysis - although I suspect that finding an impartial study would be difficult. SAM has been on A4 paper since 1983, and yes, earlier issues were thinner, and proportionally there may have been less words, but it was only following SAM's resurrection in 1995 that the magazine was edited and produced entirely using computers - prior to that the editor's workload was actually higher, as everything was put together from 'hard copy'... ....yes, computerisation made things easier, especially once contributors began to supply their material digitally, but the fundamental job of an editor has always been the same - to edit. Traditionally, that involves making copy fit space, which might mean reducing (or sometimes increasing) the word count whilst retaining the content and points that the author intended... ....that's where an editor having a firm command of both language and grammar and a broad knowledge of the overall subject is pertinent, not only to ensure that material is presented and published in concise, correctly-spelt and grammatically proper form, but that it is also factually correct - and no, he can't be a master of everything from Airfix to Zhengdefu, from the Wright Flyer to the Boeing F-35, but that's where an extensive source of references and access to experts in their fields come in... ....in this world of Google and instant access to vast amounts of information, "publish and be damned" doesn't cut it any more - if it's wrong, someone will point it out... Edited July 30, 2019 by andyf117 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) We appreciate all comments about any of our publications... the only way we can improve is if people let us know of our errors... but it is also nice to gather some positive feedback as well... Edited July 30, 2019 by tomf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 25 minutes ago, tomf said: but it is also nice together some positive feedback as well... Or even to gather some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, andyf117 said: Or even to gather some? Thank you now you can see why I am not an editor..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latinbear Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 2 hours ago, andyf117 said: SAM has been on A4 paper since 1983, and yes, earlier issues were thinner, and proportionally there may have been less words, but it was only following SAM's resurrection in 1995 that the magazine was edited and produced entirely using computers - prior to that the editor's workload was actually higher, as everything was put together from 'hard copy'... ....yes, computerisation made things easier, especially once contributors began to supply their material digitally, but the fundamental job of an editor has always been the same - to edit. Traditionally, that involves making copy fit space, which might mean reducing (or sometimes increasing) the word count whilst retaining the content and points that the author intended... ....that's where an editor having a firm command of both language and grammar and a broad knowledge of the overall subject is pertinent, not only to ensure that material is presented and published in concise, correctly-spelt and grammatically proper form, but that it is also factually correct - and no, he can't be a master of everything from Airfix to Zhengdefu, from the Wright Flyer to the Boeing F-35, but that's where an extensive source of references and access to experts in their fields come in... ....in this world of Google and instant access to vast amounts of information, "publish and be damned" doesn't cut it any more - if it's wrong, someone will point it out... An interesting debate but may I respectfully suggest that when pointing out spelling and grammatical errors in a magazine that such criticism itself needs to be faultless. I am referring to the first sentence above and the use of less words instead of fewer words. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Latinbear said: An interesting debate but may I respectfully suggest that when pointing out spelling and grammatical errors in a magazine that such criticism itself needs to be faultless. I am referring to the first sentence above and the use of less words instead of fewer words. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vingtor Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 Having edited an aviation magazine myself (published by the Norwegian national aviation museum in Bodø), I always made maximum effort in getting aircraft names, designations etc. correct. If you fail there, how can the readers trust the rest? Thus, I was not impressed by the repeatedly use of "Seaking" in the August issue. Another thing that annoyed me was the presentation of photos, removing any background. I guess this is the fashion these days..... What I would like to see in SAM (and other modelling magazines) is good conversion articles. Not just articles describing how to assemble various kits. BTW, the Norwegian Air Force was referred to as "RNAF" in the Sea King article. This abbreviation was used from 1940 until the mid 1950s, when it was changed to RNoAF - to avoid mixing up with the Netherland's service. This has been the term until recently, when new NATO rules caused the changed to RNORAF (all capital letters). Nils 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) Just to satisfy my curiosity, I've just run the editor's own feature article through Word - it's just over 3,150 words long, and contains no fewer than 51 uses of a semi-colon... ....and of those 51, only one appears to be a correct usage, right at the very beginning - most of the other 50 should actually be commas; a few are completely superfluous... Edited July 30, 2019 by andyf117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Vingtor said: Having edited an aviation magazine myself (published by the Norwegian national aviation museum in Bodø), I always made maximum effort in getting aircraft names, designations etc. correct. If you fail there, how can the readers trust the rest? Thus, I was not impressed by the repeatedly use of "Seaking" in the August issue. That, and being referred to in the article's sub-heading and product description as 'Mk42' was what first drew my attention to the growing catalogue of errors... 54 minutes ago, Vingtor said: What I would like to see in SAM (and other modelling magazines) is good conversion articles. Not just articles describing how to assemble various kits. The good old 'Conversion Topic' articles - proper modelling... 54 minutes ago, Vingtor said: BTW, the Norwegian Air Force was referred to as "RNAF" in the Sea King article. This abbreviation was used from 1940 until the mid 1950s, when it was changed to RNoAF - to avoid mixing up with the Netherland's service. This has been the term until recently, when new NATO rules caused the changed to RNORAF (all capital letters). So was RNorAF ever an official abbreviation? I've seen it very widely used, in books, magazines, and online, of course - I always regarded it as the proper term... ....even the authoritative Flight International used it (top right of this page): https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1967/1967 - 1594.html?search=rnoraf Edited July 30, 2019 by andyf117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts