I agree with wanting to throw authors who don't do even basic research across the room.
Wilbur Smith is one. I eagerly tried one of his books and put it down after a page or two. He talked about an obelisk with four sides. Each side referred to a different season of the year.
Sorry, Will. The Pharaonic Egyptians didn't have four seasons of three months each. They had three seasons of four months each. After that, I couldn't read anything more.
Oh, Wilbur Smith. Dear Deity. I read one of his books. I wish I hadn't.
Poor or suspect researching can indeed be maddening. Have just been reading a recently-published historical novel, by an American lady, set in England and continental Europe in the era of the English Civil War. Found the book overall, not quite bad enough to stop reading it, but it was a close thing ! Various errors / improbabilities, on various scales -- the worst for me, involving the Royalist heroine's having to flee England to avoid arrest by the Cromwellian authorities, to do which she takes an in my perception unlikely and counter-intuitive route. Her escape involves -- to get to a seaport -- crossing the county of Norfolk (the bit of England which "bulges" into the North Sea, a little under 100 miles north of London).
The author claims in her foreword, to have visited the parts of England in which the story is set, including Norfolk; but from the content of the book, I have to wonder... she depicts Norfolk in the 1650s as a savage, almost unpopulated wilderness, beset with appropriate perils. By all that I've ever understood, that region in those times was a deeply rural and rather backward part of England; but there were plenty of people there, living more or less the same kind of lives as English folk elsewhere in the land. I concluded that in this particular matter, the author was writing alternative history without meaning to...