If you just like reading books about the war, then he was arguably one of the best writers out there. And I agree that his interpretation is pretty fair in general and I don't agree with much of the complaints about him.
But the problem for me is the simple fact that he is not a historian.* The point is not that he did not study history at university.
I know of plenty very good historians who did not study history at university...a good number of people on this forum I would call (Amateur) historians.
(and I also know some who did and are just very bad at it)
The problem is that he don't follow the standards used by actual historians... because he don't back up his claims with sources.
His work would not pass a high School history exam here in Denmark... no matter how much he knew or how great a storyteller he was.
As long as one don't back up ones claims with sources, then what one write is basically no better than a novel for anyone who study history.
* It is also my impression that he himself did not claim to be one.
----
That said, I think it is a great TV documentary. Its 1000 times better than most of the stuff we get today from "history" and other networks. And it did a lot of good with getting people interested in the period and in reenactment.