Its not a question of whether the fact should be included Its a question of the emphasis being put on them  Changing the section name doesnt fix the problem unless you want to head it A random list of matches that implies nothing  The difficulty is that someone has picked these matches out as having particular significance  And in so doing they are voicing an opinion that they are significant without any cite that says this was one of Sharapovas must notable matches  And thats even before we consider the match analysis that goes along with itTo give an extreme example to illustrate what would you say if I was to create a section called Marias Greatest Moment and write about my favourite Sharapova match winning forehand smash with a cite to a mention of the match  All factual but with an emphasis that is entirely my POV  And even if we all agreed that yes indeed this was her greatest moment it still would be entirely POV unsupported by reputable sources  This Notable matches is obviously not as blatant but its the same thingThe only way to remove opinion from the picture is to establish a factual measure for a matchs inclusion and I dont think thats something that can be established as a precedence on one tennis article alone  Im not saying its a big problem  But anyone assessing the quality of the article is likely to ask Whose opinion is it that these matches are so notablesignificantspecialwhatever that they deserve a special mention in a separate section  Talk 

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Its not a question of whether the fact should be included Its a question of the emphasis being put on them  Changing the section name doesnt fix the problem unless you want to head it A random list of matches that implies nothing  The difficulty is that someone has picked these matches out as having particular significance  And in so doing they are voicing an opinion that they are significant without any cite that says this was one of Sharapovas must notable matches  And thats even before we consider the match analysis that goes along with itTo give an extreme example to illustrate what would you say if I was to create a section called Marias Greatest Moment and write about my favourite Sharapova match winning forehand smash with a cite to a mention of the match  All factual but with an emphasis that is entirely my POV  And even if we all agreed that yes indeed this was her greatest moment it still would be entirely POV unsupported by reputable sources  This Notable matches is obviously not as blatant but its the same thingThe only way to remove opinion from the picture is to establish a factual measure for a matchs inclusion and I dont think thats something that can be established as a precedence on one tennis article alone  Im not saying its a big problem  But anyone assessing the quality of the article is likely to ask Whose opinion is it that these matches are so notablesignificantspecialwhatever that they deserve a special mention in a separate section  Talk 

