| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Ken Morrow be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
POV
editI've tagged this article with a POV tag. In reading it, the whole thing seems full of glowing (and unsourced) praise of Morrow. I'm aware that he is, in fact, considered to be a great hockey player, but the lines:
Morrow could be one of the most underrated defencemen in hockey history. Morrow's defensive positioning was technically perfect, his physicality was under-appreciated, and his overall hockey intelligence was astounding. Morrow was also extremely tough.
seem to me to be a little much.
I'd go to the trouble of editing this page, but don't know enough about Morrow to do so. I figure there have to be a number of editors who are more familiar with the subject than I am. Tstreet (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed the wording to
Morrow could be one of the most underrated defencemen of his era. Morrow's defensive positioning was outstanding, his physicality was under-appreciated, and his overall hockey intelligence was exceptional.
I feel comfortable that this is a much more accurate wording. I do not know how to take off the header saying the article is being disputed though.
As a giant hockey fan ( and a Rangers fan in particular ) I feel the change from "of all time" to "of his era" as well as the slight change loss of the word "astounding" to "exceptional" is fair.