One of the basic rules of reviewing is realizing it's not all about you. You may be within the target audience but you are never the sole target of the author. You need to imagine uses of information that are beyond your own needs and wants and be capable of appreciating their value to others. The core act of reading a 400-page scholarly history study alone should commit any prospective reviewer to at least a basic level of prep work and framing of expectations.
These are such easy principles to follow but they're beyond many "reviewers" who unfortunately possess the additional need to express their particular views publicly. Ratings on e-commerce sites usually aren't even worth discussing, but I've noticed an uptick (granted, an unscientifically measured one) in recent years of some of our best authors receiving poor marks for being "too detailed."
Step on down Earl Hess and get your 1-star review for being too good and David Powell you get two of them.
Scott Patchan, Tim Smith, Richard Sommers and Eric Wittenberg, yours are similar in thoughtlessness but a bit more generous in star rating.
It's not all bad. It does show that your books have broad enough appeal to snag bycatch in your paying customer nets and there are often plenty of 5-star raters willing to bury the outliers.
P.S. Michael and I are of the same mind on this.