You might want to try editing for style rather than references; the deleted text doesn't seem encyclopedic in tone, and doesn't mesh well stylistically with the rest of the article.

Specific things that stand out:

His highly popular story.

Wikipedia pages generally don't describe works as popular without reference. If a work is a bestseller or major cultural phenomenon, the page will make notes that effect, but you should try to avoid sounding like a fan plugging the story.

isn’t primarily interested in teaching readers the “what” of science

The story isn't interested in anything. You can describe the intentions Eliezer in writing it, but writing about what the story is interested in or intends sounds inappropriate.

even though it is liberally sprinkled with interesting facts about genetics, game theory, quantum mechanics, and psychology, among other things.

Sounds like what wikipedia would categorize as weasel words. "Liberally sprinkled with" is vague, and "interesting" is too subjective. Stylistically, you should also try to avoid using the passive voice (my parents both have degrees in writing and I hated it when they used to tell me that, but I have to admit that for most cases they were right.)

Instead, as the title suggests, it’s about the “how” of science, conceived of not in the narrow sense of research in a laboratory, but in the broader sense of the process of figuring out how anything in the world works.

It's not obvious that the title suggests this, and "it's" would probably be better as "Methods of Rationality is."

has been favorably reviewed by

Passive voice again.

The text does seem to be relevant and adequately cited for the content that isn't subjective, so those are the things I'd focus on.