There is a whole article on the Icons book. There is criticism there. What more do you want? The WP article on Wells says, "Wells's assertions and conclusion in this book, as well as in his other writings, are rejected by the scientific community." That is silly and false. It would be more informative to find someone who has some specific objection to some assertion in the book. But then things get complicated. Some of Wells's assertion are true and accepted. Wells claims that some biology textbooks have been modified as a result of his book. I don't know whether that is true or not, but criticism of Wells in a Wells biography should at least contain Wells's side of the story.