You know, stuff like, are the droid modes and clone armor accurate? How close were the events to the actual happenings or are they completely made up?
It's mostly accurate, but it uses the outdated notion that Senator Binks was an unwitting pawn in the creation of the Grand Army of the Republic. At this point, it's widely accepted that Binks was one of the chief architects of Chancellor Palpatine's rise to power and the formation of the Empire, starting with the creation of the army.
It's actually very accurate.
I don't think I need to say any more. But I just want to opine: Most historical adaptations are hurt by being shoehorned into a standard 'heroic narrative' and much is lost or changed in the portrayal (See: A New Hope). This is unfortunately done to please audiences but, if you ask me, it's completely unnecessary. Good history doesn't need to be foregone in order to make a successful movie. Just think, if it had been portrayed differently we would have lost the amazing portrayals of debate in the Galactic Senate and lengthy discussions of complex Galactic politics. The audience misses all of this if you whitewash history with an attempt to create a coherent, relatable, and entertaining 'heroic-narrative'. The only historical adaptation that rivals it in both accuracy and format is The Phantom Menace.