This thread has brought up a number of issues that are worth thinking and talking about.
I certainly agree that the first component of a competent review is an accurate, objective description of the product. I respectfully disagree, however, with those who contend that the opinion of the reviewer has no place in a review.
For one thing, the reviewer's opinion is almost always going to work its way in - whether the reviewer wants it to be there or not. And one of several functions of reviews (whether of model kits, books, cars, or whatever) is to provide informed commentary for the benefit of readers who don't know much about the merchandise. Good magazines (like FSM) employ reviewers who know what they're talking about. I haven't built a model of a tank in at least twenty years. If I suddenly make up my mind that I want to build a Panther, I'll read some reviews of Panther kits in FSM (and elsewhere). One reason I'll read those reviews is that I figure I can assume the reviewers know more about Panther tanks than I do. Their infomed opinions will help me make an informed decision about how to spend my money.
But the reviewer has a responsibility to make a clear distinction between fact and opinion - and to offer opinions in a way that's useful to the reader. "The fuselage of the kit is, according to William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich, 1/16" too long." That's a statement of fact (note that it's backed up with a reference); the reader can decide whether that 1/16" is worth caring about or not. "This is the worst armor kit any company has produced in twenty years." Sentences like that make me quit reading. (Come on. Is this guy really competent to make a statement like that?) "The cockpit is adequately detailed for the scale." That's an opinion - expressed in a way that, for me as a reader and potential purchaser, is utterly useless. (The reviews on another website frequently tell me that the detail on particular parts is "pretty good." That tells me nothing.) "The cockpit is made up of sixteen plastic parts and eight photo-etched ones. The process of assembling it is extremely finicky; I lost two tiny brass levers in the carpet. Their absence is impossible to detect through the tiny canopy." Better.
Years ago I read a kit review in which a very experienced and respected warship modeler informed his readers that all warship models ought to be cut off at the waterline, because full-hull warship models, except on very large scales, look "perfectly ridiculous." Well, he's entitled to his opinion - but he ought to clarify that what he's written is precisely that: his opinion, with which everybody else is equally entitled to agree or disagree.
An earlier post made some generalized statements about how reviewers are compensated. Those generalities may be valid regarding FSM - but they aren't universal. I've reviewed quite a few kits for various journals over the past thirty years (not for FSM, as it happens) over the past thirty years, and I've written dozens of book reviews for publications ranging from the Nautical Research Journal to the American Historical Review. The sample kit or book has always constituted the entire payment; I've never gotten a dime in cash for writing a review.
As for the matter of prices, I'm inclined to agree with those who've said that the most important thing is that the price be mentioned - so the reader can decide whether the kit is worth buying. Statements like "the kit represents good value for the money" (a common phrase in quite a few modeling magazines) are ok, I guess; the reviewer is certainly entitled to that opinion, and expressing it doesn't do any harm. (I can't recall the last time I bumped into a review that said a kit was grossly over-priced.) I do think, though, that occasional comparative observations about prices can be appropriate.
Example: Airfix has just released a brand new 1/72 Spitfire Mk. I. On the basis of the photos FSM has published, it looks like a remarkable kit - accurate shapes, sharp, countersunk panel lines, lots of cockpit components, etc., etc. The most conspicuous competition is the Tamiya kit, which offers all those features but has taken some criticism due to the slightly blobby molding of its canopy. The Tamiya kit's retail price (at Squadron, as of this morning) is $17.00. I couldn't find the price of the Airfix kit in a few minutes of surfing, but it looks like it will probably go for $8.50 in the U.S. I think a review of the Airfix kit mentioning any contrasts with the Tamiya one - including the prices - would be valid and valuable. (I'm among those who think that $17.00 is a high but tolerable price for a first-rate 1/72 fighter, but if the $8.50 version is just as good in every important respect, I'll take it every time.)
It looks to me like Airfix is currently trying to shake up the price structure in the world of high-quality plastic kits. Take a look at the published commentary on the new Airfix 1/48 BF-109E ($21.25, compared to Tamiya at $29.00 or Hasegawa at about $50.00), and the 1/350 H.M.S. Illustrious ($73.75 - the lowest price of any 1/350 aircraft carrier kit on the market if I'm not mistaken). If this grand old British company is not only bringing us first-rate kits but trying to reshape our ideas about what constitutes reasonable prices, I think that's highly newsworthy. But just how do these new Airfix kits compare with the more expensive competition? Before I plunk down my hard-earned cash, I'd like to know.
I like the features FSM occasionally runs (or has run in the past) in which a qualified reviewer compares a bunch of kits that represent the same subject. Such an article comparing all the 1/72 Spitfires currently available - including their prices - would, especially for a post-middle-aged American Anglophile like me, be most welcome.
For what it's worth, I've always found FSM's reviews to be among the most reliable, ethical, and professional in the business. My biggest complaint: I wish there were more of them.