Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Morphy/archive2

Paul Morphy
The article is detailed and well researched but unfortunately deeply POV-ridden, for example: "He was extremely polite, cultured, quiet, and reserved. In appearance he was small in stature, slim, and always impeccably dressed. His sense of sportsmanship was of the highest caliber, and his combination of brilliant play and personal modesty made him a welcome guest everywhere." However, User:Drogo Underburrow objects my editing of the article, and redaction of comments like "an invaluable resource" and "a great book", on the basis that I haven't read the relevant books. I wondered if Peer Review might clarify the situation. Also other suggested improvements to the article would be welcome. Soo 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As this edit is your only contribution to the article, I question the good faith of this request. Inline citation however, are a good method to attribute value judgements without cluttering up the prose needlessly. --zippedmartin 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that I have not edited the article ought to tell you that I am neutral with respect to it. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF and check out my edit history here before making accusations. Soo 11:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Asuming it doesn't mean you're never allowed to question it. It's never stopped people throwing policy pages around innappropriately, for starts. Peer review is simply most effective when active editors on the article request it, and are willing to put in work to make changes suggested. As you're unlikely to go and get the reference book, look up relevant passages, and then edit the article, there's not really much good me saying to you "inline citations are often useful for value judgements". If you're coming to peer review because you had an argument with someone on the talk page, you're probably not here for the right reasons. Just leave the pov tag if you like and get back to creating and editing articles. --zippedmartin 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to reply to this, but then I thought, "Why bother?" Soo 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be: I was going to reply to the content of this... 24.16.251.40 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)