In, among other things, the genre of "questioning the unique genius of Richard Feynman", Kathy Loves Physics and History drops what may be her magnum opus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipCeSTGpoLg
It's a history of the Poynting vector, which she thinks is poorly motivated... but the thing that annoys her beyond everything else was the way Feynman basically dropped the D and H fields in his treatment of Maxwell's equations.
I'm pretty sure I know why he did that: it's because he was a particle theorist, and didn't greatly care about the interaction of electromagnetic fields and bulk matter, so he just pretended everything was in vacuum for about 90% of his exposition. But that's exactly the assumption Kathy never wanted to make--and the historical development of the field definitely didn't make it, though, as she explains, they oversimplified it most of the time.
(As for the Poynting vector, it always seemed to me that the correct approach to energy flow in EM fields was through the stress-energy tensor of the electromagnetic field, and ideally you ought to be able to derive it from that... but I was never patient enough with the non-vacuum case.)
(note, I said particle *theorist*; if he'd been an experimental particle physicist responsible for building accelerators and detectors, he'd definitely care about that!)
@mattmcirvin - I'm very glad Feynman left out D and H from the fundamental laws of electromagnetism. I seem to recall he derives the equations with D and H from some assumptions about how a medium can get polarized or magnetized.