I don't think I saw any cases where I agreed with your reading of the source. You interpreted the text differently, but I don't recall a case where the information in the article text was at variance with the information in the book. TH1980's interpretation of the text was presumably similar to my own. Sometimes your interpretation of sources is rather unique, but if you just consider the basic question of whether the facts presented in the book match the facts presented in the article, then there was never really much of a problem. I think TH1980 and myself look at the sources in a more straightforward and conservative manner.
The reason why I know that TH1980 has access to the sources is because, firstly, he explicitly mentioned having access to Henshall and other sources during the good article review, and secondly, he himself has cited these books in the article. You can surely see that the answers to your questions are much more straightforward than sinister. Off-topic questions have filled up the talk page before, but none of it actually achieved anything. We certainly have a chance to achieve real progress, but going off on so many tangents, in a thread which is supposed to be about article structure, is hardly productive. If we don't have a consensus on article structure, we would do better to discuss the relative merits of mediation versus request for comment.