Talk:Trumpeter (company)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
Find sources: Trumpeter (company) — news, books, scholar
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
