First off, I intentionally left your name out of my comments, and did not link to any of the several reviews I mentioned. I do not delude myself into thinking people are immediately searching for those reviews after reading my musings, although I rather suspect one poster to this thread does like to gratify himself late at night reading his own vitriol. If you like your review - wonderful. I happen to think it missed quite a bit of obvious flaws. This thread is after all entitled Rant About Reviews.
As for your comments abut having access to the real thing, it certainly doesn’t hurt - but it is not necessary. I opined when the kit was announced but not yet released that it may be of a prototype. My access had nothing to do with that. It was simply a matter of knowing the M109A7 had not even been classified as such yet, and yet here was a kit purporting to be of one. And it turns out I was right before I even saw the kit. (for you silly-villains out there, classification has nothing to do with classified information, but rather acceptance of the weapon system by the military at which time it receives its designation, classification, whatever you want to call it. Kind of like kit itself - announced but not yet released.)
When I unboxed the first of three of these, and yes, all of mine had heavy flash in exactly the same spots, but why belabor the point - the very first thing I noticed on the hull after the warpage and the flash (cue in Jim Gaffigan here: Did he just mention the flash again?) were the bolt holes from the spade mounts. That’s something I would expect to jump out at pretty much anyone who did internet research as you did.
I think it’s intellectually dishonest to say Some missing, extra, or misplaced bolts and a few missed vents were its only problems. By choosing those particular examples, which are in fact the least of the kits problems, you attempt to trivialize the major shortcomings of the kit - misshapen components, missing details, very large ones, a fictional loader’s hatch that looks nothing like the actual one, and several other things that jump out - not just the errant bolt, of which there were many since you bring it up.
@ everyone else:
I’ve built many, many desk models for Lockheed Martin Missile Division. That doesn’t make me a better modeler, but I’d like to think it does give me more of a Robert Pirsig outlook to model building than most.
,
Okay, skip the search everyone. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which I first read in the 70’s is still a good book today. In it, the protagonist, Phaedrus ponders the meaning of quality… Like porn if you happened to be on the Supreme Court back then, it was hard to define, but you knew it when you saw it. I’d recommend it even if you’ve never ridden before, but I digress…
These desk top models I build go to folks in the artillery branch - high up folks I would imagine - but who must have at one time come up through the ranks like most of us did. I want every build I do to speak to the recipient. Without pulling out calipers or a tape measure, I’d like it if he said “Yup, looks just like the one I commanded, chiefed, wrenched on or pissed on,” whatever is appropriate in his case. Many of the things I pointed out would be noticed right off. and I still say Panda should have been embarrassed to offer it,.
Gino… I would hope that attacking you was not the intent of the content. See first paragraph above. SO, no, I don’t think it was. If it had been my intent I have called out a few other reviews of his. 
There would be extremely few reviews if only subject matter experts were allowed to write reviews.
Perhaps so, perhaps not. And who’s to say we wouldn’t be better off for it? Again, look at the title of the thread.
Most folks don’t this because my handle is 18Bravo - I have been Field Artillery qualified since 1998. I have attended every single enlisted artillery course from 10 level to 40 level (higher does not exist) and have pulled the tail on anything from WWII pieces, to Soviet pieces, to the latest and greatest, being the M777 and the M119, which I even posted videos of here last year.
AND YET
I do not consider myself a subject matter expert on artillery.
I have parachuted out of, rappelled, fast roped and helo casted from, and been slung beneath several helicopters in the US inventory. Even took a few lessons on an old Huey.
AND YETdo not consider myself a subject matter on any of those either,
You don’t have to be to write a good review.
I helped MENG with their H1 kit and their F150. I have driven neither.
Other than a T-62 in Afghanistan, I have never driven a tank.
I’ve helped AFV Club with tanks, fixed and rotary winged aircraft, and even a missile system - none of which I had anything to do with in real life. But if I reviewed them I’d look at them with same critical eye that I’d use when inspecting my buddy’s parachute before I kicked his ass out of an airplane.
Maybe that is what we need. People with the attention to detail to notice the flaws.
I would like to say that when I set out to review something I turn to a large number of books I have and the internet for information on the subject. So knowing nothing in my book means I set out with no preconceived opinions.
Huzzah!
Immediately followed by:
My reason for dipping my toes in this pond was that I did not want Gino feeling he was the subject of an attack…
Really? Again? It’s a model building forum for God’s sake. No one is curing cancer here. Believe me, anyone I’ve ever attacked in life
A. Knew they were being attacked
B. Usually regretted the outcome
And 3. Did not look forward to experiencing it again, if they could.
Rather than shaming people that have done their best to produce a review for the benefit of the rest of us, perhaps a more useful approach is for someone who really knows what they’re doing to produce a “how-to” guide for writing a solid kit review.
You cannot shame a person, they can only shame themselves, i.e. Panda.
Who’s to really say who knows what they’re doing? Some like witty reviews about sheep, some like reviews that grouse over an imagined shim.
Personally, I like what Vodnik does/did. His build reviews are thorough to the point of exhaustion. That leaves the reader to decide how much, if anything he wants to do to a kit to improve it. Kind of like sex - from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Or was that communism? Whatever…
Beware the detailed drawings that are available
Indeed. I’d give you two thumbs up, but along with my index fingers I need them to type…
Once you’re done with the build, write up your own review of the kit for the benefit of everyone else. The “nth-degree” review that you want of that kit is just waiting for you to write it.
Agreed. WWII German armor fans demand it. Why not everyone else?! Most people would never notice the four inch asymmetry in a Tiger turret, nor care. Or count the number of teeth on a drive sprocket. Or know they need to be counted. But these guys apparently do, And with Dave Byrden, who I would also place in the more knowledgeable category, they get what they need.
They can be so demanding over what might seem to some to be the most trivial of details
and not be seen as psychotic, yet demanding more from modern armor is seen as nitpicking and obsessing over inconsequential details. Again, just because it’s not in your wheel house doesn’t make it less important for someone else.
Lastly, I did very few “official” reviews for Armorama. I’m in a position to purchase my own kits thank you, and savage them as I please.
