Talk:Naked Is the Best Disguise

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Media franchises: Sherlock Holmes Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sherlock Holmes (assessed as Low-importance).

Unreferenced?[edit]

I don't understand why the article is said to "not cite any references or sources." If a person reads the book (which is the subject of the article), he/she will find the references contained therein. The article is about the very book that contains all of the references in the Wikipedia article.Lestrade (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Well, the point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book-review site. It cannot contain the personal opinions of somebody who read the book, no matter how obvious one thinks they are. An encyclopedic article should quote reliable sources that have written about the subject book. If such sources cannot be found, it probably means the book is not notable enough and does not deserve its own article, and not that one should go ahead and write his own piece about a book he happened to read.Steloukos (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frustratingly vague[edit]

"speculating on alleged hidden meanings in the works of Arthur Conan Doyle.", "The book argues for a surprising relationship between the Sherlock Holmes stories and [many authors]" and "It alludes to Rosenberg's premise that Conan Doyle left clues throughout his works, revealing his innermost hidden thoughts." These statements are extremely vague and unhelpful. What exactly did the book say these hidden meanings were? --Khajidha (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]