![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Holmes' solution centers on the essential set of mechanical drawings that the thieves did not get. "The double valves with the automatic self-adjusting slots are drawn in one of the papers which have been returned." The opportunity to acquire that crucial paper drew the spy into a trap. [1] Michael McGinnis ( talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I have re-inserted the underground map since it provides the context of the story, especially the discovery of the body and how it came to be found where it was. Any objections?? Peterlewis ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The "Commentary" section is written almost more like a critical/analytical essay than an encyclopedic entry. I'm hesitant to simply remove it myself, but something ought to be done. 63.3.9.129 ( talk) 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There are no sources cited in this section. Once removed, per WP:BURDEN, which is Wikipedia policy, the section should not be restored unless sources are added. Otherwise, such analysis or editorializing simply does not belong in an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOR). — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
is, like most of these stories, written like fan mail. •Jim62sch• dissera! 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Holmes' solution centers on the essential set of mechanical drawings that the thieves did not get. "The double valves with the automatic self-adjusting slots are drawn in one of the papers which have been returned." The opportunity to acquire that crucial paper drew the spy into a trap. [1] Michael McGinnis ( talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I have re-inserted the underground map since it provides the context of the story, especially the discovery of the body and how it came to be found where it was. Any objections?? Peterlewis ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The "Commentary" section is written almost more like a critical/analytical essay than an encyclopedic entry. I'm hesitant to simply remove it myself, but something ought to be done. 63.3.9.129 ( talk) 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There are no sources cited in this section. Once removed, per WP:BURDEN, which is Wikipedia policy, the section should not be restored unless sources are added. Otherwise, such analysis or editorializing simply does not belong in an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOR). — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
is, like most of these stories, written like fan mail. •Jim62sch• dissera! 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)