Tabletop Mini Painting source review worksheet for The Army Painter painting guide and charts

tabletop mini painting readers can use this as a saveable review worksheet for the tabletop mini painting playbooks folio: open the attached Miniature paint recipe sheet, check The Army Painter painting guide and charts, then compare it with The Army Painter video archive before adding the note to a playbook.

The worksheet has six fields: reader problem, source checked, claim to verify, decision affected, missing context, and next test. Those fields keep the post useful even when the reply thread is quiet, because the next reader can download the template, copy the tracker row, and see what still needs evidence.

Start with The Army Painter painting guide and charts for the primary reference. The practical check is not whether it sounds authoritative; it is whether it changes a concrete tabletop mini painting decision, checklist item, tracker row, worksheet field, or template example.

Use The Army Painter video archive as the comparison source. If it agrees with the first source, record the shared rule, route, setting, policy, metric, or pattern. If it conflicts, put the disagreement in the worksheet instead of smoothing it into a broad summary.

Vallejo Folkestone Basics set guide belongs in the third slot because it gives the folio a document, dataset, repository, guide, API, checklist, or worked-example angle. The subject tags to preserve are mini-painting, tabletop-miniatures, paint-recipes, hobby-tools, and the note should use those labels only when they describe a real field in the worksheet.

Video cross-check: The Army Painter video archive should be used for workflow texture, not as the only citation. Watch for the specific screen, demo, route, pattern, cut setting, session step, or process moment that would change how the worksheet is filled out.

Two sources to open first: us.thearmypainter.com/pages/downloads and youtube.com/@TheArmyPainter/videos. Use the attached file to record which claim each source supports, which claim remains opinion, and which detail should be removed if nobody can verify it.

This post should earn a reply if someone can improve one field: a better source, a sharper caveat, a stronger example, or a missing beginner trap. The pass-fail test is whether the attached worksheet would still help after the title and author are removed.