Kit Review Sections - Room for Improvement? Changes? Your Thoughts, Please...

[randx0]

I just hate the speculation prior to the kit being released . Pictures of kit content should be the primary inclusion in a review of a newly released kit . I like the discussions about the real cars, previous releases , rivet count , blatant oversights and potential future releases , However , wading through all that before seeing what's being critiqued is ridiculous . the review section is fine as is as long as the pics make it to the first post when available , because they usually get lost somewhere in the middle of a popular thread . That's all I have to say about that .

Edited December 2, 2013 by randx0

[sjordan2]

I go with the "News and Reviews" angle that keeps things pretty much the same but makes the direction clearer. I also agree with:

1. Less speculation about a kit that hasn't appeared yet.

2. Show what's in the box.

3. Show a build.

4. If you've built it, list the pros and cons like the magazine does.

[Eshaver]

Revues ........................... O K

Revues with Pictures , perfect !

Speculation, hey do we really need this non sense ?

[Pete L.]

I agree with Ed's veiw above...

[Casey]

Speculation, hey do we really need this non sense ?

There are very few topics in the Reviews based on what might be (i.e. kits which have neither been announced nor shown), but the Revell '57 Ranchero and the '83/'84 Olds Cutlass topics are speculative (or at least partially based on facts), so I can see the "speculation" point regarding those two topics.

If a person has knowledge of a kit which is to be released but has yet to be announced/shown, that's not speculation, even though very few people may know about it's impending announcement, so I see no harm in mentioning it nor starting a new topic to discuss it.

[bbowser]

I really don't see a problem here the way it is. Are pictures better? Sure! Do you have to build it? No. But any info I can get prior to a purchase is helpful. I agree that a formal format will not fly.

[freshawk]

Pictured for everything. Be it , requesting pictures of a vintage kit , to showing a current production kit , the pictures make a huge difference in how useful the information is (I'm thinking of the model box picture library that one of the members put together , that is half the battle.) , but its not limited to that. Due to so many kits being reissued many times , having those breakdowns of issues helps out in a big way equally. But at the same time , most people generating content here for us all to draw knowledge from , are already doing it for the love of it , not for the money , therefore it makes it difficult to adhere to much of a formal format. Arguing over Chip Foose is my biggest gripe about that section , if his name was replaced with something fun like ice cream cone? maybe i could handle it.

That being said , big thanks to the regulars in that section who possess styrene wisdom to share. I offer you my endless gratitude.

[Tom Geiger]

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.

And we have a winner!

And when there's a speculative thread, and someone creates an actual review, or there's two different review threads DON'T go combining them into a single thread. It's just confusing and uncalled for.

I like to read a good review by a knowledgeable person, but I tire of the 20 pages of comments tearing the kit to shreds.

[Speedfreak]

Ah yes, and down the rabbit hole we go. How 'bout this; A thread for (new) kits that 'have been' released and one for those that 'have not been' released, leave everything else (format) as it is? And now let me drink that potion.