Exactly - 'poorly designed' is not the same as 'build quality'. They say 'build quality' when they mean 'design'. A badly designed mirror is usually built perfectly. The build is seldomly the problem - and if it was, they need to be able to say why and how instead of trying to sound fancy by saying 'perceived build quality'.Fundamental design does not equate to (build) quality. It may be a "quality fundamental design", but the execution in building thereof may suck.
Why would a rear view mirror cause wind noise? If that's the case, then a vehicle has serious design issues. Side view mirrors might cause excessive wind noise. And the quality (e.g. poorly designed or worn plastic mold) of it might actually cause wind noise.
Obviously.But if they don't state what their perceptions, standards and experiences are, then it is useless to use fluffy words like 'solid', 'quality' and 'suffice' and 'fun to drive'. Surely any course in writing (or just common sense) teach that to these 'journalists'? As above, nobody has any idea of how big that boot is. Can it carry a pram? But we know it is 'suffice'. Soo valuable.Perception of the author. That's what they do day in and out, so in theory they should have experience to subjectively form an opinion on a vehicle. It is definitely opinion, but should match what the majority of vehicle owners perceive. There will always be edge cases and exceptions.
As above, your 'fun to drive' car and my 'fun to drive' cars are very very different. If the 'journalist' can't say what it finds 'fun' then it should rather not bother.