Please give them space. Drop some of the more marketing orientated "news" items to do so if you have to.
Example from 2012 March 17 edition: wide angle lens comparison: talk in the introduction about vignetting being common to lenses in this class but no reference to vignetting in the reviews of the individual lenses. OK, I may have missed anything in the Nikon section as I skipped it very fast, such lenses being of no practical interest to me. I would have thought that a comparison between the full aperture vignetting of the Sigma 12-24mm "full frame" lens in comparison with that shown by the "crop frame" alternatives would be very interesting to those with a crop frame camera wanting a lens like this: is the improvement in performance by chopping of the edge of the design image circle worth the extra cost and weight of this lens?
Obviously individual people will have different ideas about the weight to be given to vignetting, but hey, give us the information & let us make our own choice, rather than leaving us out in the dark. (Nasty pun, sorry)
Some of these lenses presumably include a lens hood in the package and some don't. That's important to some of us, as is the lens hood's effectiveness at preventing glare from out-of-frame light sources and the effect that the hood might have on handling (does it have to come off to get the camera + lens back into my bag?). Whether the hood is included and, if not, the extra price for the option should of course be indicated. It isn't.
Also the resolution charts for the corners only have been printed, leaving me to question how much of the difference was due to lens design and how much to focusing errors.
Done well, this sort of comparison is exactly the sort of thing that will build the magazine's readership base. But six pages for six fairly complex lenses is IMHO too tight to do the job properly.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space