Recently there has been a lot of discussion of what makes a good review . . or what makes a good article. Here are a few thoughts on what I feel are important for both.
Reviews: My feeling is a review should never outright condemn a kit unless it is truly bad - and, yes, there are some in that category. One must take into account the pedigree of a kit and know what to expect from a certain type of product. A shortrun injection kit will never come up to a Tamiya kit and should not be compared to one. . rather a review of this kit should concentrate on the shapes, fit and if there are problems, how to fix them. It does no one any good to say this kit is junk and wait for one by xxxxx company who will give you all pieces needed. This leads to . .
Articles: Now here is where a fair amount of latitude can come into play. Myself, I prefer to see all the mistakes made during construction and how the builder fixed them. After that, interesting new techniques are always appreciated . . and here even the most rank beginner will have something to show the old hand. So rather then say "I did x and then y" .. describe how it was done, someone will benefit from it.
In the end we come to the crux of Richard Marmo's introduction to this month's Scaleworld. . some are *kit builders* and some are *modellers* .. however neither is to be condemned in my mind as long as both enjoy what they do. Myself I have fun doing the building .. completion is less of a goal than the enjoyment gained while working on the model. Perhaps this is why I have only finished one in the past 5 years, but have 20-30 nearing completion - this is my way of "making modelling fun again".