Talk:Naked Is the Best Disguise

Unreferenced?
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
 * 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)

Frustratingly vague
"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)