Here is a review article by a Stanford Professor of History Education which goes into some of the problems with the history in A People's History: http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter1213/Wineburg.pdf

Here is an article by a Rutgers Professor of History: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112574/howard-zinns-influential-mutilations-american-history

It's been awhile since I read "Peoples' History," but in retrospect what really stands out to me is Zinn's utter silence on the racist motivations of the 1863 New York draft rioters. It wasn't that the they didn't want to go war - they didn't want to go to war to liberate slaves and "n-words." That's why they lynched 11 black men.

Zinn was a good popular writer, just not a good historian. By simplifying history into binaries like "anti-war = good" he ignored the complexity that makes history such a vital and interesting discipline.

Certainly there is always more to be said about some questions, but much of this topic is discussed in previous topics listed in the FAQ here