Talk:Trumpeter (company)

Reviews of Trumpeter Products
I tried to add some sources and moved some down into footnotes. I removed the link to the review of the CV-8 Hornet, since it is no longer accessible. I also removed the general link regarding the withdraval of the F4F prior to its release and added a reference to the official statement of the importer. I removed the quote from the Hyperscale discussion board, since it was not linked and I thought that the officla statement is a better source. To balance out, I added the review of the retooled kit and the Me 262.

Independent, sourced reviews of Trumpeter model kits are available at several web site and other publications including Perth Military Modeling site, AMPS (amps-armor.org), Hyperscale, Armorama, and others. The kits I listed have been rated highly.

Kindly do not remove references to these reviews and their conclusions, 217.85.192.23. These are sources, not personal opinions. If you have other sourced content to add, by all means please feel free. DMorpheus (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your refs are a tad dubious. Try a site that is large and well organized, such as Scalemates. The article has too much unjustified criticism about a product and little real info, and so it is not in line with WP policies. When was Trumpeter created? What is their % of the market? Exports to? The article reads like an Airfix fanboy bagging the opposition.220.244.236.132 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reorganized 12-27
I created new sections to divide the armor model content from the ship content; other sections can be added as needed. Restored cited armor review content reverted 4 times by 217.85.192.23 in violation of wikipedia 3RR rule. Hopefully the creation of the new sections can allow for each editor to get the results they are seeking. DMorpheus (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice approach and certainly the first productive idea in the discussion. That meets my proposal. The new article draws a picture much more fitting, and that is what I expect of wikipedia. Sorry but obviously without that "violation" no positive result could be achieved. Hope experts in the aviation and naval modeling field will fill the gap. In order not to "violate" again any "opinion, judgement, knowledge strictly forbidden" rule, I will not contribute further to this article. 217.85.209.216 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, assumption of good faith would have gone a long way towards achieving this result faster. Bye. DMorpheus (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)