... Crick declares in his preface that he thinks biography is about facts, not conjectures about the inner man. He's willing, in other words, to record every statement made by Orwell himself about himself and the opinions of his friends and foes, but withholds any personal judgement of what made Orwell tick.
This is not the optimal way to write a biography. In my opinion, you need to analyze the facts and views of others carefully and then come up with some sort of thesis about the subject, not only his view of himself but yours.
Which is likely the reason there have been at least five or six biographies of Orwell since Crick, even though his is the "authorized" version. (Well, not entirely: Sonia Orwell authorized it, then withdrew her approval.) True, three of them turned up in his centenary year, as expected (Bowker, Taylor, Lucas), but all of them have a distinctive point of view.
Lucas is short and mostly negative, Taylor is just but given to flights of fancy, Bowker is the most even-handed.
Jeffrey Meyers is the most tendentious: Orwell is a masochist with a guilt complex: that's the key to his personality.
Shelden claims to be "authorized" but all that means is he wrote after the complete Orwell appeared. His book is the least insightful, in my opinion.
The most important thing to be said about Crick is that he includes all the facts--or, at least, the vast majority of them--and you won't find as much in the other bios. Which probably means that though he wrote the first complete biography, he should be read last, if you want to know Orwell inside out.