Kit review question

This thread was laced with subtle phrases to seduce and to ensnare the unwary mind.

SuppressionFire

Same for which type of paint was used and the exact PSI settings for the spray gun. We all have out favorite brand and settings.

So, Aaron, there’s a use for “Notes”.

Miss the historical paragraph regarding said kit that used to be standard for the kit review article.

Some reviewers get carried away with how their build went. Modelers tend to figure out issues along the way, to recall 'part a-3 didn't fit to part f-3'  is kind of redundant and usually not remembered anyhow.

Same for which type of paint was used and the exact PSI settings for the spray gun. We all have out favorite brand and settings.

A good addition maybe the reviewers opinion on value. Say 1-10 rating on price vrs quality.

Aaron Skinner

 ..., FSM reviewers are required to build the models straight from the box with no aftermarket parts, unless it's decals to replace kit decals that will not cooperate, or to replace missing items such as swastikas. I don't know about you, but it annoys me when I read a review in which the reviewer says the cockpit parts looked good but I ordered a resin replacement. That's not really a review anymore.

Excellent point.

Aaron Skinner

TomZ2:

Fat chance!  FSM kit reviews have minimal space shoehorned between the advertisements.  I’ve repeated requested that FSM provide far more “Modelspec” information, viz.:

 Company Scale Title Kit#
 Paints used
 Materials used
 Tools used
 References
 Notes
 Available from
 Rating

If the FSM staff won’t include a standardized box of basic information like this, what do you think the odds are getting that “sprue shot” photo you want added to the one of the finished model?

Tom,

We already include a lot of the information you requested either as part of the box:  "Company, Scale, Title, Kit No.," and "available from," or in the text.

The reviewers usually mention the paints used, but what they used is secondary to how the kit goes together and if there are any issues. If by materials, you mean other items beyond what's in the kit, FSM reviewers are required to build the models straight from the box with no aftermarket parts, unless it's decals to replace kit decals that will not cooperate, or to replace missing items such as swastikas. I don't know about you, but it annoys me when I read a review in which the reviewer says the cockpit parts looked good but I ordered a resin replacement. That's not really a review anymore.

FSM reviewers usually mention references in the body of the text.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Notes" (perhaps you can elaborate).

As far as ratings go, we would prefer to describe how the kit goes together and any problems and let the readers decide if it's a kit they are interested in, rather than assign some kind of quantitative rating. How many times have you gone to see a four-star movie only to hate it, or gone to see a one-star and loved it. Rating, like reviews, are subjective by nature.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Cheers., Aaron

First, a minor clarification, Aaron, I didn’t provide a proper “bridge” between my second sentence (which was about kit reviews) and my third (which was about reviews AND articles).

While reading one of your competitors, I noticed that instead of just including “Sources”, they provided far more “Modelspec” information.  Then I suggested (initially via “Scale Talk”, over a year ago, and also submitted to you more recently) that every FSM build (any project more complex than an entry in the “Reader Gallery”) include a flexible list of such information.  Here are four sample “Modelspec” lists I scanned and compiled from one of your competitors:

The idea is to standardize where to find the information.  Nothing radical or magical, just a simple device.  Oh, and about “Notes”?  Just a placeholder (all topics are subject to omission when not applicable) for anything that rates special attention, that’s all.

Remember: this ISN’T just model reviews, it’s every build article.  Over to you.

Hi Greg

Just my 2cents -

I've been a subscriber since the early 80's. Its always nice to find the latest edition in the mailbox. Plus I don't have to drive anywhere to pick up the issue. And the additional on-line benefits as a bonus.

Not saying you should subscribe,,          it works for me (for close to 30 years)

All the best

Bill

Mr Skinner, thanks for your quick reply.  I realize you have limited space, and I am thankful for all the information you do give.  Other magazines hardly ever give box stock reviews.  I would rather after market reviews, be just that reviewed as after market, so thanks.  I certainly don't want to give the impression that I don't like your review, quite the opposite.

I am not a subscriber.  I do buy every issue (and Scale Auto too) from my LHS, as I like to support them.  So, I am not privy to the subscriber only content.  Do you, or could you, add this kind of content to the subscriber content?  That would push me over the edge to subscribe if you do.

I do want to say that I really enjoy both the magazine and the forums.  The magazine covers a lot of ground, and does it well.

Thanks again for your time.

Sincerely,

Greg Broadbear

Gregbbear

Dear Finescale, would it be possible to put a "sprue shot" picture in your reviews?  Certain manufacturers are horrible about letting you know what is in the box, and this would help even more in making an informed decision on purchases.  Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Greg Broadbear

Greg,

Your suggestion is good, but space is at a premium. Anything that takes away from the space we have now mean less reviews overall. However, it might be something we consider adding to the online version of the reviews. Thanks.

TomZ2

Fat chance! FSM kit reviews have minimal space shoehorned between the advertisements. I’ve repeated requested that FSM provide far more “Modelspec” information, viz.:

 Company Scale Title Kit#
 Paints used
 Materials used
 Tools used
 References
 Notes
 Available from
 Rating

If the FSM staff won’t include a standardized box of basic information like this, what do you think the odds are getting that “sprue shot” photo you want added to the one of the finished model?

Tom,

We already include a lot of the information you requested either as part of the box:  "Company, Scale, Title, Kit No.," and "available from," or in the text.

The reviewers usually mention the paints used, but what they used is secondary to how the kit goes together and if there are any issues. If by materials, you mean other items beyond what's in the kit, FSM reviewers are required to build the models straight from the box with no aftermarket parts, unless it's decals to replace kit decals that will not cooperate, or to replace missing items such as swastikas. I don't know about you, but it annoys me when I read a review in which the reviewer says the cockpit parts looked good but I ordered a resin replacement. That's not really a review anymore.

FSM reviewers usually mention references in the body of the text.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Notes"(perhaps you can elaborate).

As far as ratings go, we would prefer to describe how the kit goes together and any problems and let the readers decide if it's a kit they are interested in, rather than assign some kind of quantitative rating. How many times have you gone to see a four-star movie only to hate it, or gone to see a one-star and loved it. Rating, like reviews, are subjective by nature.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Cheers., Aaron

Fat chance! FSM kit reviews have minimal space shoehorned between the advertisements. I’ve repeated requested that FSM provide far more “Modelspec” information, viz.:

 Company Scale Title Kit#
 Paints used
 Materials used
 Tools used
 References
 Notes
 Available from
 Rating

If the FSM staff won’t include a standardized box of basic information like this, what do you think the odds are getting that “sprue shot” photo you want added to the one of the finished model?