FR's are valuable and shouldn't be littered with such bollocks.
I should perhaps comment as I originally threw a spanner in the works over the thread being littered with bollocks. I have some sympathy with your point of view, but my objection was different. Pages of adoring comments - mostly from people who hadn't seen the WG, added little to the review. What they were in danger of doing, however well-meaning, was distort the image of the WG as if she were some sort of superstar (and whether she is or not should be determined by the reviews, not by speculation - which also bordered in flirtation and fluffiness). In other words, it could be to the detriment of punters reading it for advice, not a benefit. I also suggested it could send the wrong message to WGs, many of whom have been enough of a pain on this board already.
Much as it is nice to have a really clean section that doesn't deviate, it does happen sometimes, and the alternative would probably be unreasonably heavy moderation. The discussion in this case has mostly gone into discussion of overnighters generally, and whether they are value for money. All of which is quite reasonable and valid (even though purists would prefer a separate thread).
So although I strongly sympathise WR, I basically agree with JRC - the benchmark (as far as I am concerned) always being, "Does this benefit the punter?"