> I contains (sic) factual errors that stand out like lighthouses showing the author had an idea about an article but doesn't actually know the material.

Whoops ^ To be fair, technically, I also contain some factual errors, if you consider the rare genetic mutation or botched DNA transcription.

So far, I haven't found anything that I would consider to be a glaring factual error. What did I miss?

I'm not talking merely about a difference in imagination of how the past might have unfolded. If you view this as an alternative history, I think the author made a plausible case. Certainly not the only way; reasonable people can disagree.

Sorry about that 't'. It was (very) late.