Question re: Kit reviews and reviews in general

[LSP_K2]

I've been considering this for quite some time now, and a recent discussion with Scott Van Aken, amplified even further my desire to discover and understand what the average modeler finds desirable in a review, regardless of subject type.

 

My own feeling is rather simple, "show me the stuff!" By that I mean that photos of the item mean a whole lot more to me than endless and sometimes tedious and boring text about the subject. For me, some explanation of overall quality is also important, whereas issues of "accuracy" are not, except where there are obviously egregious errors or generic detail.

 

Thoughts?

[Landrotten Highlander]

I do not read reviews that often, and mostly purchase based on 'gut' feeling - i.e. do I like it, does it give me impetus / generate ideas for me wanting to start this kit, etc.

Some time ago I read a review of a kit I was already interested in (Harbinger of Death by Galapagos miniatures), and the review sort of 'pushed' me to move that particular kit at the top of my wish list.  It included lots of clear and detailed pictures of the kit itself, but also gave me insight as to what I might expect the work to be once I started (i.e. clean up, fit, etc).

 

In an ideal world I would seek out reviews of a particular kit or subject (e.g. prototype Spitfire) to help me in determining what kits are available, which of those would be best suited for that particular subject and give me an indication as to the posibility of learning new things versus just tapping into the skills/experience I already have.

[Mark P]

Reviews...

 

A couple thinks I look for:

 

1) Honesty. If its crap, say so. Don't tell us how great stuff is for the sole purpose of receiving more "free" stuff for yourself.

2) If I am reading a review on the new B-17 (for example), I don't need to read about the history of the plane. If I wanted to know more on its history I would read one of my books or do a google search.

3) If it is an in the box review, say so. You can't tell me how it fits looking thru the plastic wrap

4) Have a level of knowledge about the subject.  

5) Photos, and good quality ones so that so that I can make my own determination of surface detail.

6) Text that is too the point. get long-winded and I will lose interest.

7) Accuracy. Yes, it important. But don't get bogged down in details. Focus on the egregious shape flaws, not the little things like a misplaced rivet. 

 

I am sure I can think of more, but leave that too others to fill in the blanks.

 

Mark Proulx

Edited January 24, 2020 by Mark P

[chrish]

agree with most points listed, I find it good to know, in a review, if the kit has been an existing one in a previous makers lineup as well.

[nmayhew]

100% with Jennings

 

as an ex-reviewer myself I understand how much needs to go in to a proper review

 

Most reviews these days are pretty worthless for me

 

Missing technical knowledge of the subject, or lacking in the research to give them that knowledge.

In bed with manufacturers and conflicted.

 

sorry but I am just a massive cynic and completely disillusioned where nearly every review is concerned 

 

there is the odd exception, but sadly most are pretty feeble

[ChuckD]

In box previews mean little to me.  I want to hear how well the kit goes together.  

[LSP_Kevin]

2 hours ago, Gewehr 43 said:

In box previews mean little to me.  I want to hear how well the kit goes together.  

 

Honestly, I think the best form of "review" for that is a detailed build thread. That's why I only do in-box reviews. They give you an idea of what's in the box, and what you get for your money. After that, it's off to the WiP forum to see how it all goes together. A few times I've actually built review kits right after reviewing them, but again, it's not done as part of the review, but instead, as an out-of-box build thread here in the forums.

 

Kev

[D Bellis]

Mark P hit the nail on the head for what sort of content I look for.

 

When I feel the need to search for more information on a given kit, I Google either the term "review" hoping to find copious images of everything that's in the box, as well as (hopefully) some intelligent comments on the accuracy of the shapes and details, or I switch to the term "build" looking for various modelers' impressions on how the kit went together. These are very different forms of information, and should not be lumped together as one. Although, adding the term "in-box" to "review" would highlight exactly what one should expect to find there. 

 

Adding the subject's history has to be the single most useless thing a reviewer can put in a kit review. If someone doesn't know what it is that you are reviewing a kit of, then why would they be reading that review? Stick to the subject at hand: reviewing the kit. Those that are reading it online can search for more info, or not, to their heart's content.

 

The comments so far on overly-glowing reviews being useless are also extremely important to keep in mind when writing a review. If there are any "yippee hooray" type hyperboles in the first paragraph or two, I simply ignore the text and examine the images, or skip the whole thing entirely and move on to the next hit on my search because that kind of commentary is not worth the few seconds it takes to read it. Also, if one is smart enough to be looking for information on a kit, then they are likely to be smart enough to ignore idiotic 'yippee hooray' reviews of crappy kits - thus the reviewer has wasted everyone's time including their own. Some sites so commonly post useless 'yippee hooray' reviews, that I completely ignore those hits when searching (CyberModeler, ARC, etc.). 

 

Maybe all of that is just me, though...

D

[BiggTim]

I'm in the camp of "build it, and tell me honestly how it went". I want to know the ups and downs of it in detail. Anything else is of no use to me. I dont even read them.

[Radub]

I like very much the way Brett Green does his reviews and his style is copied a lot by others, so having a look at his reviews is a good start. He tells you a little bit of history of the type, he tells you what is special about the version included in the kit and then concludes with a list of "advantages" and "disadvantages". Many reviewers shy away from pointing out "disadvantages" in kits due to some misguided belief that pointing out "issues" makes it a "bad review" and "bad reviewers" will not longer get products to review in the future. That is not really the case. Manufacturers appreciate "good and honest" feedback". If it is a real and true issue, it is not wrong to point it out. In the past Brett pointed out "issues" with some of my products, for example in one of my early decal sheet instructions that showed only profiles I did not mention the national insignia decals for the opposite side - I did not think that would be an issue, but I fixed the instructions to make them clearer and I continued to do so on my subsequent decal sheets. I will continue to send him samples for review. 

There are a few of things I hate in reviews: 

- Lazy "copy and paste" and taking the "word on the street" or "agreed consent" as "Gospel." I have seen reviews where the reviewer said stuff like "this kit is notorious for the bad fit" but then it turns out that the "bad fit" was discovered by some random guy on Facebook who taped the parts together without following the instruction manual or preparing the parts (removing tab leftovers, sanding, etc) and then posted a photo in which they "flipped the bird" at a jumble of kit parts. There are actually some guys whose "schtick" is to be angry and badmouth stuff. They are not a representative segment of the modelling public out there. If you feel like you need to test-fit parts, do it for yourself and do not take the word of some guy. If you are going to put your name on a review, make sure it is based on your own experience. 

- Do not take the word of the "internet experts" as "Gospel" in general. If in doubt, double-check for yourself. The list of "internet BS peddled as fact" is long. 

- Do not use words like "A team" and "B team". Each kit is developed individually. Slapping a label on a kit just because it comes from a certain "stable" is lazy. Regular Joes may say that on forums if they wish (even so, one man's treasure is another man's trash) but you as a reviewer need to stay impartial, no bias. You can only review what is in your hands. 

- You have to be aware of tooling limitations. Sometimes parts need to be separated in "unusual" places, some parts need to be thicker, some detail needs to be omitted or simplified, some clear parts will cause distortion, some decals may not include certain national insignia and often there are no ways around them. These limitations have been discussed ad nauseam on forums and we need to accept them as modellers. You can mention them if you wish with the caveat that they are tooling limitations. "Calling them out" as "issues" in reviews is disingenuous. 

- There are no "fatal flaws", only "challenges". :-) 

HTH 

Radu  

[mozart]

Mark Proulx said it all.  I’m actually writing a build review of the ICM Gloster Gladiator for Scale Modelling Now. It’s totally objective based upon my experience and laced with a bit of humour and complete honesty. Lots of pictures of the build like a WiP as it progresses. So far it’s taken about four hours to write but I hope it will be deemed worthwhile. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by mozart

[Adrian]

Personal point of view, but I generally prefer word/pictures over video, rarely get all the way through a video review.

 

As for the rest, what's in the box, how the parts go together (I'm a lazy modeller!), any glaring accuracy issues so I can decide if I can live with/correct/not get and marking options included in the kit with, possibly, some ideas of after-market marking options (although I realise that by default these may not be ready when a kit is reviewed)

Edited January 25, 2020 by Adrian
Smelling

[vince14]

People actually read reviews?

[Gazzas]

My favorite reviews are by somebody who has built the model.   I don't need to know every step of the build.  I usually look at the completed build pictures then skip straight to the conclusion area to see what the reviewer says.   If he isn't very expressive about how much he enjoyed or disliked the build experience, I'll go back and look for more. 

 

I really don't care for in-box reviews. 

 

 

 

 

[MikeC]

What I want to see in a review can be summed up by asking: "Is it worth spending the hard-earned/the pension/a slice of the kids' inheritance on?"

 

This encompasses what's in the box, how it fits together, whether there are any glaring inaccuracies, and will I need any aftermarket to fix a glaring problem, as opposed to what aftermarket could I use on it?  (Example: to build a Dutch RF-104G from the Italeri kit as per the kit option, you need an aftermarket Orpheus recce pod.  So I'm looking for a build review, and honest experience; if there is a bad point, say so.

 

That's how I try to write my reviews and articles.  Whilst I will say so if there is a bad point, I try to be fair and point out the good as well.  Accuracy?  I can't be an expert on the technical minutiae of every model I build, but I can say whether the finished model captures the look and character of the original - to me that's important.  And if I'm not an expert I'll say so in the review.  The aim is to provide sufficient to let the reader answer the question (see first para) for themselves.