there's a whole monograph on the Doloneia by someone of the Oralist school I think (Casey Dué I think)
I've read it and don't find it wholly convinging, but it does make a clear and strong case for "hard Parryism," and it argues that Book 10 represents another side of epic warfare--the night-time ambush--with its own specialized vocabulary and themes, and even its own weapons and clothing (non-metallic animal disguises), that doesn't get much play in the Iliad because the fighting is mostly out in the open in the day but finds more parallels in the Odyssey. There doesn't seem to be any way to distinguish book 10 from the rest of the Iliad on linguistic grounds (apart from language appropriate to night-time ambush warfare). And what really leads most people, myself include, to reject Book 10 is what we perceive as unheroic nastiness that seems out of keeping with the rest of the Iliad--we resist including that sort of thing in the Iliad we love, but that's a very subjective reaction, and who's to say that the "original audience" would react the same way?
But I don't think that bracketing any part of the Iliad, apart from very clear, demonstrable instances of interpolation, is appropriate in drawing up a text, because we have only the vaguest ideas about the processes by which the Homeric poems came into existence and about their early history. With minor exceptions, we can't tell what's interpolated and what isn't with so little concrete information about the history of the text. So, in my view, editors have no business tampering with the paradosis, expecially since the paradosis is relatively uniform and, unlike, say, tragedy, in relatively good shape, with few passages in need of radical surgery. In the case of the Homeric poems, suspicions and theories about interpolation belong in the apparatus and commentaries, not in the text itself.
The wolf simile is just one instance of what I think is the wrong approach on West's part. On the other hand, he offers a very good apparatus, noting even tiny variants in diacritical marks, and very full testimonia (though it's a little hard to separate the wheat from the chaff).