Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

It was mentioned that some reviews are lacking hard discussion facts and images of the kit being discussed, so I wanted to start a post to gather ideas and suggestions as to how we might improve the Kit Reviews (both the Model Car and Model Trucks) sections, based on the existing "new kits, old kits, reissued kits- opinions, thoughts, comments and a little bit of history thrown in" guide.

Would it be better to have a formal review structure? Do you only want to read discussion specific to the particular kit being discussed in each individual topic? Do the Reviews section need improvements and changes? Are they fine as they are now?

Let us know your thoughts, please.

Posted

How about the postings being about actual kit reviews and not about speculations on kit announcements.

I don't mind discussions about kits, but, page after page of speculations gets pretty boring. Like the thread on the new Ford Pick Up from Moebius. The kit has not been done yet but we have a 26 page thread on it! And the HEMI Cuda has 37 pages!!

Just my thoughts

Posted

How about the postings being about actual kit reviews and not about speculations on kit announcements.

I don't mind discussions about kits, but, page after page of speculations gets pretty boring. Like the thread on the new Ford Pick Up from Moebius. The kit has not been done yet but we have a 26 page thread on it! And the HEMI Cuda has 37 pages!!

Just my thoughts

What he said. How can you 'review' something that does not yet exist?

Posted

If the kit isn't out yet, the thread should be moved elsewhere. "General" perhaps. Threads like that can be interesting, but they are not reviews.A review should be a review- maybe with some wild speculation and a little history and personal opinion in there, but a review nevertheless- the whole point of a review is to get a good idea of what you are getting with the product in question.

Pictures of the kit contents and/or a built up kit are great, but not absolutely mandatory.

A formal structure for each post would be great, but being as cynical as I am, I'm pretty sure nobody would follow it.

Posted

Would it be better to have a formal review structure? Do you only want to read discussion specific to the particular kit being discussed in each individual topic? Do the Reviews section need improvements and changes? Are they fine as they are now?

Let us know your thoughts, please.

A formal review with pictures. If the kit is being reviewed the subject matter should only be about the kit being reviewed. I enjoy the section but if l am reading about a certain kit there is always lots of posts that don't always apply to the kit in question..

Posted

I tend to agree with the above posts. A formal structure to follow, and discussion of kits not yet released in the general section.

Posted

Is there a new Hemi 'cuda kit then?

:P

Change nothing. This forum is already too prescriptive as it is. Having posts moved around without notification is a PitA and is something that should happen less not more.

What does it matter if there are 36 pages of discussion about a kit that only makes an appearance in the last few pages? It's not like you have to flick through them to get to the next thread is it?

If you're worried because there are threads in the reviews section that are speculative then just change the title to Kit Reviews and Speculation.

Posted

I think that the threads that are currently in the reviews section should stay as is, however a new policy moving forward could be adopted.

When it comes to new releases, separate threads for speculation and reviews should be present. Once the kit is released, a new thread strictly for the review should be started (say, for the Moebius F-100). These new release review threads would ideally present enough material for presentation in the magazine itself (pictures of box contents) and discussion on the kit.

Retro reviews would ideally also contain pictures of box contents. History of a line of kits should contain pictures of box contents, but from experience I can tell you that unless you actually own all the kits it is difficult to do.

Just my 5¢ (according to the Government of Canada's suggested rounding guidelines)

Posted

One of the clubs I'm in has an e-mail newsletter with kit reviews in it. There is a pretty basic format that makes it look nice and clean. If we added pictures to the format I think we would be good to go, here is the format for those of you wondering.

Model reviewed:
Scale:
Manufacturer:
Kit number:
Reviewer's name:
Kit is reviewed only. Kit was built. (delete one of the statements)
Kit is injection molded - resin - vinyl - other. (delete the materials not related to your kit)
Color of Plastic Kit is Molded in:
Kit Cost: (If Available)
Rate the following with 1 as the least favorite and 10 as the best response.
Highlight the number and then underlined it.
1. Subject matter - interest...........................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(not just to you in general)
2. Overall quality............................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(plastic, clear parts, tires, etc.).
3. Amount of preparation work required.....1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(flash, sink holes, molding marks, etc.)
4. Ease of assembly - if you built kit............1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(part fit, assembly problems, etc.)
5. Decals........................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(registration, colors. etc.)
6. Overall impression....................................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7. I would recommend kit to others..............1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
What do you like most about the kit?
What do you like least about the kit?
Any specific problems with the kit?
General comments:
Posted

If the kit isn't out yet, the thread should be moved elsewhere. "General" perhaps. Threads like that can be interesting, but they are not reviews.A review should be a review- maybe with some wild speculation and a little history and personal opinion in there, but a review nevertheless- the whole point of a review is to get a good idea of what you are getting with the product in question.

Pictures of the kit contents and/or a built up kit are great, but not absolutely mandatory.

A formal structure for each post would be great, but being as cynical as I am, I'm pretty sure nobody would follow it.

I am with Chuck on this subject. Maybe the actual reviews from the magazine that Larry does could be posted here?

Posted

A formal structure for each post would be great, but being as cynical as I am, I'm pretty sure nobody would follow it.

And there's the answer...

Posted

What he said. How can you 'review' something that does not yet exist?

Maybe you can't review it in the strict definition of reviewing, but it can be discussed. Using the Revell '70 Hemi Cuda kit as an example, we've seen pre-production built ups for close to a year, so we KNOW the kit is coming and we can see what is and isn't included based on the parts boards Revell brings to shows, so we are in essence getting a sneak peak at the kit. Some people take close up pics of the kit's parts at shows, which provide a pre-production look at what's inside, preempting the actual production kit, too, so where does that content belong?

Then what should happen to the comments and opinions about those pre-production kits? Say someone post comparison picture of the pre-production kit to an MPC original '70 Cuda body, then when the kit arrives and we can start an official topic in the reviews section the pre-release topic is locked and any info there has to be repeated in the new topic or linked back to in the pre-arrival topic?

Posted

No formal review structure. These are created by board members in their spare time. Once you formalize it and create a template, it's more like work than fun. Just my opinion.

Posted

If a person is going to do a review, the first thing they should do is take photos. Secondly, they should build it! A review is useless IMO if the person reviewing the kit doesn't build it. How is one going to know if there are any issues with fitment etc.? Anyone can take a kit out of the box, look at it and say "Yep, it looks like a good kit to me!" Yeah, but how does does it all fit together?

Maybe have a separate section for actual reviews and another for discussions, speculations and tips on building it correctly for factory stock.

Posted

I say leave it as it is, but maybe change it to "News and Reviews" . Then, when/if someone does an actual build review (like Tim Boyd did with the Hemi 'cuda) start a new topic with a link to the actual review with "build review" or something like that in the title.

Posted

If a person is going to do a review, the first thing they should do is take photos. Secondly, they should build it! A review is useless IMO if the person reviewing the kit doesn't build it. How is one going to know if there are any issues with fitment etc.? Anyone can take a kit out of the box, look at it and say "Yep, it looks like a good kit to me!" Yeah, but how does does it all fit together?

Maybe have a separate section for actual reviews and another for discussions, speculations and tips on building it correctly for factory stock.

Don't agree on having a built review necessary. "What's in the box" reviews are more worthwhile to me then one picture of a built kit and half a page of text.

Very few people here have time to do an actual build review and are not likely to have the time to photo the process either, so there won't be many of this style review.

One thing ALL reviews need is pictures. They are useless without them. I like sprue shots, close ups, etc.

I love retro reviews and history lessons

I usually stop reading threads that get too long and off topic or that start discussing nuances of different trim levels - more of a build/general thread then a review.

Keep it simple.

Posted

I think it works like it is. One thing I'm not sure about is where would you post a question about a kit you were looking at but there were no reviews on? Should that go in Modeling how to's or kit review?

Posted

Don't agree on having a built review necessary. "What's in the box" reviews are more worthwhile to me then one picture of a built kit and half a page of text.

Photos will show you "what's in the box". But, it won't show you how well those parts do or don't go together.

Very few people here have time to do an actual build review and are not likely to have the time to photo the process either, so there won't be many of this style review.

Any box stock model can easily be built in a week to ten days at the most. A lot of people here can build them much faster.

One thing ALL reviews need is pictures. They are useless without them. I like sprue shots, close ups, etc.

I love retro reviews and history lessons

Agreed completely as long as the history lessons are kept short and on point.

I usually stop reading threads that get too long and off topic or that start discussing nuances of different trim levels - more of a build/general thread then a review.

So do I. I always cringe when a reviewer comes off with, " if you want to build a ..........you can do this, this, this and this and have a ........or you could........."

Keep it simple.

Posted

Only one point...if a review sites particular obvious inaccuracies...like the recent Mustang roof height...it would be nice to always see good, clear comparison shots of the 1:1, and actual measurements, so the potential builder might get an idea of how bad something really is, and how much correction will be necessary in the pursuit of accuracy.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...