I think this is the best point here. Reviewing is hard work with very few rewards - and you have to decide at the start whether it is worth your time to embark

I think this is the best point here. Reviewing is hard work with very few rewards - and you have to decide at the start whether it is worth your time to embark on it. Ideally we would like to learn something from the paper. I and most people here would most likely strongly prefer to review a paper written by someone good at what they do. In reality most papers are pretty bad - thus when we prefer reviewing papers written by Nobel prize winners we are not "biased" and "humbly bowing" before their greatness - we are just trying to make it worth our while.