Leaving aside my own feelings on Foucault (most of which are not good), I am often stunned by his poor sense of early modern history. I know, I know, he does not care about history in the same way historians do, but due to his influence among many of my undergraduate students already, I am trying hard to counter act their obsession with his version of history. Is there a good book or article that points out all of Foucault's historical problems and inaccuracies?
Is it acceptable to recommend a book to the OP without going too in depth into the arguments contained therewithin?
You might get some use out of The Killing of History, by an Australian gentleman named Keith Windschuttle, although I don't entirely agree with his outlook.
Windschuttle presents a brief history of the emergence of structuralism, post-structuralism, semiotics, and hermeneutics, and the consequences of their permeation though various disciplines of academia. He devotes a moderate amount of text to Foucault, and takes a very dim view of him. Whether or not you come around to agreeing with Windschuttle, his book presents a robust litany of the arguments that Foucault's critics make.