:: I had the page watchlisted but was busy and wasn't paying much attention; it seems a edit-war brewed in the meantime. The current version seems to be "accurate" but suffers from giving undue weight to the Johnson review, which is just one of many reviews of the book. Also it would be preferable to paraphrase Johnson accurately rather than quote it so extensively. I think piecemeal editing of the page is sure to restart another round of edit-warring, so I think it would be better to write a more encyclopedic criticism/review in toto and then invite comments. I'll try to do that, but it may be later in the week before I get down to it. 
By the way, I have seen some experienced editors take umbrage at getting "template warnings" since they read it as being treated as newbies - so even though that reaction may be thought  irrational, it is often more productive to drop them a "handwritten" request for explanation instead. This is just my personal experience, not a wikipedia policy and of course each instance needs to be judged on its own. Cheers.