Reviews SUBMIT your review / article
If you have a review you would like published on Cloudy Nights, please submit it to email@example.com. We ask all submissions to agree to some simple guidelines:
- Tell us about your general geographic location, years experience, # of scopes
owned and biases you may have.
- No editorial changes will be made to an author's contribution without their
consent. We may at times ask authors to clarify a section but will not interfere
with the actual content.
- Authors are asked to be fair-handed, a process that we understand can be
painful for a proud owner. Please tell the readership both the good points
and compromises that were made. Don't pull any punches; tell it like it is.
- Comparative reviews are especially welcome. Showing how one scope/accessory
stacks up against another gives the content a sense of context.
- We request that no "pre-production" instruments or accessories be submitted
- Make sure you include any images associated with your review / article
- How To Write a Product Review By: David Knisely
Cloudy Nights is particularly interested in posting multiple perspectives on
the same telescope or accessory. Each of us has our own biases and experiences,
which mold our opinions of different instruments. To be 100% objective is truly
impossible and perhaps is rather uninteresting to read. The key to deciding
which author is "right" is really a decision about which author shares
your unique philosophy of viewing and optics. In other word, which author do
you identify with the most, or keyed in on certain variables that you find important.
To this end we would like other owners of already reviewed scopes to step forward
and share their experiences with us.
Additionally, multiple reviews show trends or certain variables all the authors
mention or agreed upon. This lends validity to the variables in question and
ultimately helps the reader reach his/her own conclusion. Articles where the
authors diverge in their results should not be viewed with any additional skepticism
then any other article posted. Such articles merely reflect the honesty of the
authors (they stated what they saw, not what others expected) and should serve
as a reminder that all articles are inherently subjective. Here the readers
should key in on how the authors reached their separate conclusions and decide
which author's perspective they identify with most.